Dismissed

Mahendra Verma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2018A482/5843/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. Finding no prima facie abuse of process and noting that disputed facts require trial court adjudication, the Court refused quashing and vacated interim orders.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing dismissed; interim order vacated; accused directed to move for bail below within two months.

Mahendra Verma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5843 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Mahendra Verma And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Fakhruzzaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of impugned order dated 30.11.2016 as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No.378 of 2015 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and u/s 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Premnagar, District-Jhansi pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J. D.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.

¶6

List has been revised. Despite repeated calls none has appeared on behalf of the applicant to press this application. Learned AGA is present. This application is of year 2017. In the wake of heavy pendency of cases in this Court where dockets are already bursting on their seams there is no justifiable reason to further procrastinate the matter. This Court, therefore, deems it fit to proceed in the matter on the basis of the record and with the assistance of the learned AGA representing the State.

¶7

It seems that in order to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties, the matter was referred to undergo mediation proceedings. The report of the In-charge, Mediation Centre dated 11.5.2017 reveals that the requisite money, as was directed by the Court, was not deposited and it is apparently clear from the record that the aforesaid attempt of mediation could not succeed and did not bear any fruit for certain reasons. The Court, therefore, deems it fit to decide the matter on merits.

¶8

According to learned A.G.A. failure of mediation process seems to be the obvious reason to explain the non appearance of applicant's counsel and ostensibly there is an attempt on behalf of the applicant to drag the proceedings in order to continue benefit of the interim protection.

¶9

The perusal of the grounds taken in the application, though not of much help, reveal that many of them 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 applicant. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. The submissions raised in the application on behalf of 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 pre-trial before the actual trial begins.

¶10

The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized 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.

¶14

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

¶15

A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that 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 applicant 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.

¶16

The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the Court's process either.

¶17

The interim order, if any, is vacated.

¶18

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

¶19

(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).

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed off.

¶23

Order Date :- 3.8.2018 Manish Himwan

Mahendra Verma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Verma and 2 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

Himanshu Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ganga Dei and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Shiv Naresh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Sonkar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another