Dismissed

Sanjeev Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2018A482/3980/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court rejected the prayer to quash criminal proceedings, holding that the case discloses a prima facie offence and does not fall within the illustrative categories for quashing. The application was dismissed, and the court directed the resolution of pending bail objections.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing the impugned orders was refused, and the application was finally disposed off.

Sanjeev Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3980 of 2006

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.

¶5

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of order dated 22.3.2005 passed by Additional District & Session Judge, Chandausi, Moradabad in Criminal Revision No. 469 of 2004 (Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Urmila) and order dated 18.3.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Chandausi in Complaint Case No. 439/9 of 2004 (Smt. Urmila Devi Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others), Moradabad.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

All the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicants relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon on behalf of applicants. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pretrial before the actual trial begins.

¶8

The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.

¶9

Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.

¶10

The ambit and scope of interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction has its own constraints and limitations. In fact even while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or while wielding the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the quashing of the complaint can also be done only if it does not disclose any

¶11

offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of law in this regard clear recognizing certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.

¶12

Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.

¶13

The perusal of the complaint, and also the material available on record make out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and I do not find any justification to quash the complaint or the summoning order or the proceedings against the petitioner arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

¶14

The order passed by revisional court also does not suffer from any such infirmity or illegality which may call for any interference by this court as the same is well substantiated with sound reasonings.

¶15

The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned orders or the proceedings under challenge. There is no abuse of court's process either.

¶16

However, it is observed that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the accused may appear before the court below and apply for bail within two months from today. The court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application, keeping in view the observations made by the Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290 and also in view of the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

¶17

In the aforesaid period or till the date of appearance of the accused in the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to.

¶18

It is clarified that this order has been passed only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved in this Court.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed off.

¶20

Order Date :- 19.9.2018 AK Pandey

Sanjeev Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

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

Puttan Babu Vs State of U.P. and Others

Aksheybar Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Madheysia and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shakuntala and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahid and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheshmani and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another