The court rejected the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to halt criminal proceedings. Relying on settled authorities, the bench held it cannot evaluate evidence or merits in such proceedings. Finding triable offences established by record, the application was dismissed.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 17107 of 2020 dismissed.
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. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17107 of 2020
Applicant :- Javed And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite parties contends that the evidence collected during the course of the investigation as well as the statement of the complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly disclose a commission of cognizable offence by the applicants who are the accused persons. In particular, attention is drawn to the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. given by the complainant Ailish.
The statement clearly asserts that the complainant was being molested and threatened by the applicant no. 1. He repeatedly accosted the complainant whenever she ventured out to college. The applicant no. 1 also tried to force himself on her. The applicant no. 2 and his cohorts also tried to forcibly enter into the house of the complainant and threatened her and her family members.
I see merit in the submission of the learned A.G.A.that the material /evidence collected by the police during the course of investigation fully agrees with the case in the F.I.R.
The material in the record clearly discloses that triable offences have been committed by the applicants.
In proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court cannot go into the merits of the stand of the either parties, or evaluate the evidence in the record.
The limits of the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been long settled by the Hon'ble Supreme court.
There is good authority in the law to fortify the said propositions. Reference can be made with profit in this regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .
The authorities are applicable to the facts of this case and shall govern its fact.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.12.2020 Dhananjai
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings should be allowed.
Whether the evidence collected during investigation discloses commission of cognizable offence.
Whether the High Court can evaluate evidence in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶11
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶11
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶11
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶11
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Javed And Another
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
