The court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge sheet. It held that factual queries and assessment of defense evidence lie beyond the High Court's jurisdiction at the charge-sheet stage, relying on settled legal propositions.
Application dismissed; charge sheet is not liable to be quashed at this stage.
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. - 34
Criminal Misc. Recall Application No.3 of 2019 In
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17985 of 2005
Applicant :- Jinesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- G.C. Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,A.N. Mishra,S.K. Mishra
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Order Date :- 1.10.2019 Manish Tripathi
Court No. - 34
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17985 of 2005
Applicant :- Jinesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- G.C. Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,A.N. Mishra,S.K. Mishra
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
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.
“ 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.
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)
Order Date :- 1.10.2019 Manish Tripathi
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet submitted on January 5, 2005 be quashed at the stage of consideration under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.Explained¶2122
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.)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jinesh Kumar
State of U.P.
Sudhir Agarwal
Manish Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
