Criminal application for quashing of summons proceedings. The court found a prima facie case and held that allegations were disputed matters of fact not appropriate for adjudication. Prayer for quashing was refused, though bail guidelines were noted.
Application for quashing proceedings and summoning order dismissed; bail considerations directed.
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. - 9226 of 2019
Applicant :- Ram Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned Counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding including summoning order dated 7.12.2016 in Complaint Case No.1912 of 2016 (Mahaveer Prasad Vs. Ram Kumar and others), under Sections 323, 406, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Babupurwa, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of A.C.M.M.-IVth, Kanpur Nagar.
The contention of the learned counsel for applicant is that no offence against applicant 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-applicant, passed summoning order.
At this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. 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 directed, while considering his 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 :- 29.3.2019 Vivek Kr.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere in a criminal proceeding at the stage of summons by quashing the entire proceeding?
Whether prima facie case exists against the applicant based on the material available on record?
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 Haq and anotherReferred¶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¶12
Brahm Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (7) ADJ 151.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Kumar
Rajendra Kumar-IV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
