The High Court refused an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash a charge sheet and criminal proceedings. The court held that the submissions were concerning disputed questions of fact not amenable to determination at this stage under the Bhajan Lal guidelines.
Prayer to quash charge sheet and entire criminal proceedings refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10080 of 2018
Applicant :- Alham Siddki Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar Rawat,Suneel Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the Charge Sheet No. 26 of 2015 dated 22.6.2015 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case Crime No. 0548 of 2015 (State Vs. Alham Siddki), under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) X of SC/ST Act, P.S. Khadda, District- Kushinagar, pending in the court of C.J.M., Kushinagar.
As per the allegations made in the first information report and the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C, it is alleged that the applicant abused the victim with the name of his caste with an intention to humiliate and intimidate him in public view and also assaulted her. On account of assault made by the applicant, the victim has suffered injuries on his person and has been medically examined. As per the supplementary injury report, the victim has suffered a fracture injury on left ulna bone.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicant and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed.
Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the charge sheet as well as entire proceedings is therefore refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear/surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible.
With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 4.12.2019 KU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 482 CrPC jurisdiction is attracted to quash FIR and criminal proceedings alleged to be instituted with malafide intent.
Whether disputed questions of fact can be adjudicated by the High Court at the stage of application under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶11
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶11
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶11
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶11
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Alham Siddki
State of U.P.
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
