Single judge application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings alleging false implication and no prima facie case. Court held no case made out to interfere as prima facie case exists.
Prayer to quash proceedings and stay further steps under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30588 of 2019
Applicant :- Kalattar Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harishchandra Dubey,Ram Mohan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Dubey
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 4079 of 2018 (old complaint case no. 490 of 2016) (Anar Singh Vs. Kalttar Singh and others), under Sections 380 IPC, Police Station Bhogaon, District - Mainpuri arising out of summoning order dated 10.9.2018 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mainpuri. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned AGA appearing for the State.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that one FIR had already been lodged on behalf of the applicants against the opposite party no. 2 and others. They were sent to jail. When they obtained bail then lodged an FIR on the basis of false facts. Matter was investigated. Final report was submitted and on the basis of protest petition. Concerned Magistrate entered into Chapter XV of the Criminal Procedure Code rejecting the final report and recorded evidence thereon. Thereafter impugned summoning order was passed. It is also submitted that offence under Section 380 IPC is not made out, Concerned Magistrate did not summon the applicant under Section 436 IPC. It is further argued that present complaint was filed in counterblast with malafide intention only to put pressure. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that complaint has not examined the witnesses named in the FIR instead he examined his son in support of the complaint.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Prima faice case is made out. Complainant and the witnesses have supported the prosecution case.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no primafacie case is made out against the applicants. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.
With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019
Sachdeva
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when a prima facie case is made out.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kalattar Singh And 3 Others
Om Prakash-VII
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
