Dismissed

Nandkishore and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2019A482/44961/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the charge-sheet and criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that a prima facie case was made out. The court directed that bail applications be disposed of expeditiously if the applicants surrender within one month.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; interim direction given for expeditious bail consideration if applicants surrender within one month.

Nandkishore and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44961 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Nandkishore And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Ratan Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Desh Ratan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet No.01 of 2018 dated 12.01.2018 of Case Crime No.262 of 2017, under Sections 147, 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Gonda, District Aligarh and further criminal proceedings of Case No.1978 of 2018 in pursuance thereof including the order taking cognizance dated 26.11.2018 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Iglas, Aligarh.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and prima facie no case is made out against them. It was alleged that son of opposite party No.2 has enticed away the daughter of applicant No.1 in the year 2015 and applicant No.1 has lodged F.I.R. against opposite party No.2 and his family members. Applicant No.1 has lodged another F.I.R. against sons of opposite party No.2, regarding rape with his daughter, under Section 376D I.P.C. & Section 6 of POCSO Act. It was submitted that proceedings of the present are counterblast of above stated cases. Learned counsel further submitted that a 'panchayat' was also held regarding dispute between the parties, wherein, some 'marpeet' has taken place, but the issue was settled peacefully, but despite that, respondent No.2 has lodged F.I.R. by moving application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was further submitted that investigation was not done properly and impugned charge-sheet was filed in a casual manner without considering entire facts and circumstance of the case.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the material on record, it cannot be said that no cognizable

¶9

offence is made out, hence the impugned proceedings or impugned order is not liable to be quashed.

¶10

The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

¶11

In the case of R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others reported in 2009 (1) SCC 516 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

¶12

(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a First Information Report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.

¶13

(2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.

¶14

(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.

¶15

(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue."

¶16

The said decision has also been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Kumari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.

¶17

reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3700. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the proceedings cannot be quashed. Here it would also be pertinent to mention that questions of fact cannot be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶18

Keeping in view the above stated settled position of law, in the instant case perusal of record shows that there are allegations against the applicants that applicants and co-accused persons armed with sticks trespassed into house of Bhoop Singh, did abusing and wife of complainant was assaulted at her private parts. When some persons intervened, accused-persons have caused injuries to family members of complainant, namely Bheema, Suman and Rambhuli.

¶19

It is apparent from the complaint and material on record that a prima facie case is made out against the applicant/s. The case of the applicants does not fall in any of the category enumerated by the Apex Court through various judicial pronouncement for quashing of proceedings. It is well settled that at this stage, this Court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in submission of charge sheet and then eventually in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ingredients constituting the offence is required in order to see whether the proceedings deserves quashing. In case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill; reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi; reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors; reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615 , the Apex Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540 it has been held that probabilities of the prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise, the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance.

¶20

In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Similarly no such illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out in the impugned summoning order, so as to warrant any interference by this court in exercise of powers u/s 482 CrPC.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings or impugned order is made out. Hence the prayer for quashing the impugned proceedings and impugned order is refused.

¶22

However, keeping in view the facts of the matter, it is directed that in case applicants appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail within a period of one month from today, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. For a period of one month from today or till the applicants surrender before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶23

With the aforesaid direction, the application is disposed of finally .

¶24

Order Date :- 7.12.2019 Ravi Kant

Nandkishore and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandkishore and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Sumit Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Satyajeet Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Nitin Baliyan Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Raju Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another