Dismissed

Keshav and 3 Others v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2019A482/9093/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the summoning order in a criminal complaint. The court held that the Magistrate had recorded statements and found prima facie commission of cognizable offence, precluding interference at this preliminary stage.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of summoning order was dismissed.

Keshav and 3 Others Vs State of Up and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9093 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Keshav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of summoning order dated 2.2.2019 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Court No. 09, District Agra in Complaint Case No. 1383 of 2018 summoning the accused-applicants under Sections 380, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC for facing trial. The usual grounds taken are that the applicants have been falsely implicated they are innocent, there is no credible evidence and the entire proceedings are on account of enmity etc.

¶7

It is stated that initially applicant no. 1 lodged F.I.R. against the complainant and three other persons on 3.3.2018 as Case Crime No. 228 of 2018, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.s. Khandauli, District Agra, therefore, in counterblast this case has been instituted by the opposite party no. 3 against the applicants.

¶8

It is further contended that there are several documents which show that complaint has been filed maliciously but it is admitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that these documents were not before Magistrate at the time of passing of summoning order.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the submission of learned counsel for the applicants.

¶10

It appears that complainant Sobharam filed a complaint bearing Complaint Case No. 1383 of 2018 against the applicants in the Additional C.J.M., Court No. 9, Agra whereupon Magistrate concerned after recording the statement under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., has found commission of cognizable offence under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. and sufficient ground for proceeding has summoned the applicants. In my view, it cannot be said that no offence is being made out from the perusal of complaint and the statements recorded by the Court below under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. I, therefore, do not find any

¶11

justification to interfere with the order challenged in this application.

¶12

The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a routine manner, but it is for limited purposes, namely, to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.

¶13

The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised sparingly. This will not include as to whether prosecution is likely to establish its case or not. I need not go into various aspects in detail but it would be suffice to refer a few recent authorities dealing all these matters in detail, namely, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Popular Muthiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 7 SCC 296, Hamida vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 474, Dr. Monica Kumar and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 781, M.N. Ojha and Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 682, State of A.P. vs. Gourishetty Mahesh and Ors. JT 2010 (6) SC 588 and Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated and Ors. 2011 (1) SCC 74.

¶14

In Lee Kun Hee and others Vs. State of U.P. and others JT 2012 (2) SC 237 , it was observed that the Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, cannot go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations and appreciate evidence, if any, available on record. Interference would be justified only when a clear case of such interference is made out. Frequent and uncalled interference even at the preliminary stage by High Court may result in causing obstruction in the progress of inquiry in a criminal case which may not be in public interest.

¶15

However, in the present, the Magistrate concerned has recorded statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and having found prima facie commission of cognizable office, has summoned the accused-applicants for facing trial. At this stage there is no occasion to look into the question, whether the charge ultimately can be substantiated or not since that would be a subject matter of trial. No substantial ground has been made out which may justify interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶16

The application is dismissed accordingly.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.3.2019 Akram

Keshav and 3 Others v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshav and 3 Others v. State of Up and 2 Others

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

Smt. Sudha Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ganga Sagar Vs State

Devendra Singh Vs R.L. Trivedi and Another

Smt. Kiran Kumari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pratap Singh and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Seeta Dixit Alias Seeta Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another