The High Court refused the applicant's petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, holding that disputed factual allegations regarding malafide intent could not be adjudicated at this stage as a prima facie case for offences existed.
The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding and the 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. - 9155 of 2019
Applicant :- Sanjay And 5 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for applicants.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 994 of 2017 (Smt. Sushila Vs. Sanjay and others), under Sections 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Nakud, District Saharanpur as well as summoning order dated 28.11.2018 passed by learned A.C.J.M.-IInd, Saharanpur.
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 primafacie 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 (para10) 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 :- 11.3.2019 Manoj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court should quash criminal proceedings and summoning order in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacking disclosure of an offence.
Whether disputed questions of fact regarding malafide prosecution can be adjudicated upon at this stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur v. State of PunjabExplained¶10
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalExplained¶10
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. P.P. SharmaExplained¶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 Haq and anotherExplained¶10
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (para10) 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
Sanjay And 5 Ors
Rajendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
