Dismissed

Ittan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Oct 2018A482/38047/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings, the High Court held that a prima facie offence was disclosed. The quashing prayer was dismissed, but the applicants were directed to surrender and apply for bail within 45 days without coercive action during that period.

What did the court decide?

Direction to applicants to surrender within 45 days and apply for bail; no coercive action during this period.

Ittan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38047 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ittan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Singh,Anubhav Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding initiated pursuant to the charge sheet no.1 of 2018 whereupon cognizance has been taken against the applicants in Criminal Case No.629/IX of 2018 arising out of case crime no.107 of 2018, under Sections 323,452,506,336,312 IPC, P.S. Chatta, District Mathura pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.

¶7

The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that the opposite party no.2 has lodged the FIR against the applicants with absolutely false and concocted allegation when no such incident has ever occurred. The investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet against the applicants in perfunctory manner whereby the court below has taken cognizance of the offence without applying judicious mind as no prima facie offence is made out against the applicants.

¶8

Per contra, the learned AGA has contended that from the allegations made in the FIR prima facie offence is made out against the applicants as such the innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at the pre trial stage. Hence, the applicants do not deserve any indulgence.

¶9

From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicants.

¶10

At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:- (i) R. P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC(Crl) 426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl) 192.

¶11

From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S. W. Palanattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002(44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that quashing of the

¶12

criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.

¶13

The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing of proceeding is refused. There is no merit in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., thus the same is accordingly dismissed. The applicants have ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.

¶14

However, the applicants are directed to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail within a period of fourty five days from today, the prayer for bail shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the Public Prosecutor.

¶15

For a period of 45 days, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶16

In case the applicants fail to surrender within the stipulated period the court below shall take appropriate action against them.

¶17

Order Date :- 26.10.2018 M. Tariq

Ittan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ittan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munna Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ganga Dulari and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs State of Up and 4 Others