The High Court refused the applicant's petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court held that a prima facie case exists and disputed facts must be decided by the trial court or through a discharge application.
Prayer for quashing proceedings was refused. Application disposed of.
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. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25464 of 2019
Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gunjan Dwivedi,Shri Prakash Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Dharmendra Singh, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dharmendra Singh, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party and Sri Thakur Azad Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing/stay the entire criminal proceedings as well as charge sheet and cognizance order dated 16.03.2017 in Case No. 169 of 2017, (State Vs. Mahesh Kumar Pandey and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 463 of 2016, under section 406, 506 IPC, Police Station Cantt, District Allahabad pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Allahabad.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be
adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose either personally or through counsel and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 8.7.2019 Arti
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 506 IPC should be quashed in public interest.
Whether no offence is disclosed against the applicant based on malafide prosecution.
Whether disputed questions of fact can be adjudicated by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶10
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalFollowed¶10
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaFollowed¶10
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqFollowed¶10
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Vivek Kumar Pandey
State Of U.P.
Another
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
