This application for quashing criminal proceedings under Article 226 or Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The court held that facts disputed raise issues of fact not triable at this stage. The court refused to interfere with the summons order.
Prayer to set aside proceedings and summoning order was refused.
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. - 9118 of 2019
Applicant :- Radha And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Archana Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for applicants 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. 648 of 2017, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506, 406 and 420 IPC, Police Station Bharthana, District Etawah pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah and summoning order dated 22.10.2018.
The contention of the learned counsel for applicants is that no offence against applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer.
From the perusal of the material available on record and looking into the facts of the case, it appears that learned Magistrate, after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. find sufficient ground for proceeding and prima-facie case against accused-applicants, passed summoning 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.
However, Trial Court is expected, while considering their bail, to bear in mind, established law by Hon'ble Apex Court and the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (7) ADJ 151.
In view thereof, application is disposed of. Order Date :- 8.3.2019 I.A.Siddiqui
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506, 406 and 420 IPC should be quashed.
Whether the present prosecution was instituted with malafide intention for harassment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur v. State of PunjabReferred¶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. v. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶10
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (para-10) 2005 S.C.C. (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Brahm Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶13
Brahm Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (7) ADJ 151
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Radha And 4 Others
Rajendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
