In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant sought quashing of a charge sheet alleging illegal liquor transport. The Single Judge held that defence evidence cannot be examined at this stage and dismissed the application for lacking merit.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.
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.
1
Court No. - 34
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5283 of 2002
Applicant :- Jagdish Kumar Arora Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Applicant :- G.S. Chaturvedi, Samit Gopal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
2
produced by driver was issued by Nagaland Government bearing No. 13, 14/NEWH/PMBW/Beer/2001 dated 24.08.2001 and its validity period was only upto 31.10.2001. Authorities found that before sending goods, the date of commencement of journey should have been mentioned in the permit and it should have been approved by Excise Authorities which was also not done. It shows that invalid permit was used for transporting liquor in multiple transactions which amounts to fraud and misrepresentation and offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC is made out.
3
stage of charge sheet and, therefore, this Court also will not examine such defence at this stage.
“15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not . In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.
4
short “Cr.P.C.”) because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case.” (Emphasis added)
Order Date :- 20.11.2019 Siddhant Sahu
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can examine the defence of the applicant at the stage of quashing of charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, make out a prima facie case at the charge sheet stage.
Whether any material irregularity or grave injustice exists in the impugned charge sheet to justify quashing it under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.Referred¶19
Criminal Appeal No.675 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1151 of 2018) (Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jagdish Kumar Arora
Sudhir Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
