Dismissed

Gaurav and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2019A482/45052/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court refused an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, finding that adjudication of fact and evidence is the trial court's domain. The court directed suspension of coercive measures and expedited bail consideration upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings refused; coercive action stayed for one month; bail considered expeditiously if applicants surrender.

Gaurav and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45052 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Gaurav And Anr Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narayan Singh(Kushwaha) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 1895 of 2019 arising out of case crime no. 1004/2017, under Sections 452, 354(A), 323, 336, 504, 506 IPC, police station Jaithra, District Etah as well as charge-sheet dated 24.03.2018 submitted in the aforesaid case.

¶7

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions. It has further been argued that prima facie, no case is made out against the applicants and the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicants without collecting any material evidence.

¶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 offence is made out, hence, the prayer as made above is not liable to be quashed.

¶9

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 chargesheet 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.

¶10

The issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of cases including R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others, reported in 2009 (1) SCC 516, Kamlesh Kumari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3700, 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid, the prayer as made above, is hereby refused.

¶14

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 the settled law. For a period of one month from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 10.12.2019 Anand

Gaurav and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav and Anr. 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

Govind Vs State of U.P.

Kshetra Pal and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Rizwana Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Awadhesh Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Rumal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Yadav Vs State of U.P.