Dismissed

Prem Ballabh Bhatt v. State of U.P. Thru Its Home Secy. Lkw. and Ors.

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2019A482/14315/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of a charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. alleging filing on mere suspicion. The Court held that factual queries and evidence appreciation are beyond the scope of Section 482 at the charge sheet stage and dismissed the application, noting absence of material irregularity or grave injustice.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; no charge sheet quashed; interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Prem Ballabh Bhatt Vs State of U.P. Thru Its… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14315 of 2004

¶3

Applicant :- Prem Ballabh Bhatt and another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Its Home Secy. Lkw. And Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶5

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra in the connected matter vide letter dated 14.10.2014 has informed that applicant-2 Laxmi Dutt Bhatt, son of Kripal Dutt Bhatt, has died and his death certificate showing his death on 06.02.2012 has been placed on record. This application, therefore, has abated so far as applicant2 is concerned and is now survives only in respect of applicant-1.

¶6

Heard Sri Adarsh Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State of U.P.

¶7

Applicant has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") with a prayer to quash charge sheet dated 02.05.2002 as well as further proceedings in Case No. 1376 of 2002, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 218, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant states that on mere suspicion, Police has submitted charge sheet against applicant which is liable to be quashed.

¶9

However, at the stage of charge sheet, Court concerned has to examine only investigation and documents collected by Police, who submitted charge sheet and defence will be examined during trial when defence is adduced by both the parties.

¶10

Similarly, while seeking a prayer for quashing of charge sheet in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court also cannot examine any defence of accused, which has yet to be placed before Court below. Stage of placing defence of accused does not arise at the stage of charge sheet and, therefore, this Court also will not examine such defence at this stage.

¶11

Time and again it has been highlighted by Supreme Court that at the stage of charge sheet factual query and assessment of defence evidence is beyond

¶12

purview of scrutiny under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The allegations being factual in nature can be decided only subject to evidence. In view of settled legal proposition, no findings can be recorded about veracity of allegations at this juncture in absence of evidence. Apex Court has highlighted that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be sparingly/rarely invoked with complete circumspection and caution. Very recently in Criminal Appeal No.675 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1151 of 2018) (Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) decided on 15th April, 2019, Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under :

¶13

“ 15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not . In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint . In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.

¶14

16. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence. 17. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties . That stage is yet to come in this case.” (emphasis added)

¶15

No material irregularity in the procedure followed by Court below has been pointed out. It is not a case of grave injustice justifying interference in this application at this stage.

¶16

In view thereof, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in impugned charge sheet. This application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶17

Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 6.12.2019 PS

Prem Ballabh Bhatt v. State of U.P. Thru Its Home Secy. Lkw. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Ballabh Bhatt v. State of U.P. Thru Its Home Secy. Lkw. and Ors.

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

Satyendra Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vedpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Wasim Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Tiwari Alias Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Saxena Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Dutt and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another