Held no competent material before the Magistrate to quash Section 482 Cr.P.C. application alleging malicious prosecution. Mathat disputed facts remain for trial. Application rejected.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. rejected; proceedings not to be quashed.
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. - 23
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9086 of 2019
Applicant :- Malya Sharma And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for petitioners and learned AGA for State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1281 of 2017, under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Lohamandi, District Agra pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Agra and summoning order dated 26.07.2018.
Learned Counsel for applicants submits that offence against the applicants are not made out and the entire prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purpose of harassment. It is further contended that there is a matrimonial litigation between the applicants and respondent no.2 because opposite party no.2 had got married with daughter of applicant no.1 on 18.06.2002 thereafter the marriage was dissolved by ex-parte order dated 12.09.2017. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. It is further stated that there are several documents which shows that complaint has been filed maliciously.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer.
Admittedly these documents were not before the Magistrate concerned and this Court while considering the correctness of order passed by Magistrate, will examine only the material which was available before the Magistrate at the time of passing impugned order.
At this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the Bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage, only prima-facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (para-10) 2005 S.C.C. (Cr.) 283.
I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and prayer is refused.
In view thereof, application is rejected.
Order Date :- 7.3.2019 I.A.Siddiqui
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to quash criminal proceedings under Section 504 and 506 IPC instituted with alleged malafide intent arising from matrimonial disputes.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. KapurReferred¶10
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶10
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. P.P. SharmaReferred¶10
State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.Referred¶10
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq, 2005 S.C.C. (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Malya Sharma And 2 Others
State Of Up And Others
Rajendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
