In this Section 482 CrPC application, the High Court refused to quash the summons, bailable warrant, and entire proceedings in a case alleging land dispute and SC/ST Act offences. The Court held that mere disputes of fact preclude quashing at this stage and dismissed the petition outright with a direction to apply for bail.
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. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35113 of 2019
Applicant :- Dinesh Pratap Singh And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishan Kumar Triwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 15.03.2019, bailable warrant dated 29.08.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.73 of 2018 (Ram Awadhesh Vs. Dinesh Pratap Singh and others), under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(VKa) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Mau Aima, District Allahabad, pending in the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Allahabad.
As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that on 10.02.2018 at about 8:00 AM in the morning, the applicants armed with lathi, danda and fawra, reached at the place of incident and forcibly tried to take possession of the land, which allegedly belonged to the victims and started raising construction. On objection being raised by the victims, the applicants abused the victims with the name of their caste with an intention to humiliate and intimidate them and also assaulted by kicks and fists and tried to disrobe them and when other family members came to their rescue, the applicants had also abused them with the name of their caste and forcibly entered in their house and assaulted them by kicks and fists and tried to outrage the modesty of women folk.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the Complaint and the material collected during the course of inquiry, no offence is disclosed against the applicants 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 Complaint and the material collected during the course of inquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, impugned
order 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 impugned orders as well as entire proceedings is therefore refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.9.2019 Zafar
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the entire proceedings in the complaint case are to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC to prevent harassment.
Whether a prima facie case is made out from the allegations in the complaint to sustain the summons and warrant.
Whether disputed questions of fact regarding the dispute over land and assault can be adjudicated under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866Referred¶11
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426Referred¶11
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192Referred¶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
Dinesh Pratap Singh and 6 Others
State Of Up
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
