Dismissed

Pragati Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Andther

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2020A482/359/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings alleging abuse of process and lack of injury. It held the High Court cannot embark on factual enquiry and proceedings were dismissed. Applicants were given 30 days to appear for bail consideration; otherwise, coercive action looms.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. Stay of coercive action for 30 days if applicants appear and surrender for bail.

Pragati Singh and 2 Others Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 359 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Pragati Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Andther Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Singh,Shiv Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Applicants, Pragati Singh and two others , with a prayer for setting aside summoning order, dated 31.1.2018, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no.10, Varanasi and, thereby, entire criminal proceeding, in Complaint Case No. 258/2017, Dashrath Patel vs. Pragati Singh and others, under Sections- 323, 325, 406, 504 and 506 of IPC.

¶6

Learned counsel for applicants argued that it was a misuse of process of law, wherein, impugned summoning order has been passed, whereas, medico legal report followed by X-ray report reveals that there is no grievous injury. It was not abnormal medical deficiency, as mentioned, in the report of the Medical Officer, even then, this summoning is there, under above Sections of IPC. Previously, a case was instituted before the Workmen Commissioner, wherein facts were otherwise and relief, claimed for, could not be granted, hence, this false case. There is variance in the statements of witnesses. Hence, for avoiding abuse of process of law, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed, with above prayer.

¶7

Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application.

¶8

From very perusal of the complaint, it is apparent that the complainant was working as Labourer and material supplier at construction site of the applicants. Complainant asked for his outstanding dues for which there occurred some scuffle and money was refused to be paid nor materials supplied were returned and on protest being made, applicants alongwith others, assaulted

¶9

complainant with abuse on 8.9.2015 was narrated. Magistrate took cognizance, examined complainant, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., wherein, he reiterated contentions of the complaint, which was fully corrob0rated by witnesses, Rajnath Singh and Chhedi as well as by medical report, which was conducted after occurrence, wherein, injury of contusion was there. Injury no.5 was kept under observations and advised X-ray, and those injuries were caused by hard and blunt object, though, in X-ray, injuries were reported to be with NAD, but prima facie the Magistrate applied its judicial mind on the basis of evidence collected in its enquiry, thereafter, has passed impugned summoning order. Though there was no fracture, but seat and size of injuries were over forehead, above eyebrow, contusion over chest, back of chest etc. etc. and all these facts are yet to be analysed by the Magistrate, during trial.

¶10

Hence, under all above facts and circumstances, this Court, in exercise of inherent power, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to embark upon factual matrix, rather the same is to be gone into, during course of trial, by the Trial court.

¶11

Apex Court, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844, has propounded that "While exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable apprehension of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court" . In another subsequent judgment, in the case of Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474, Hon'ble Apex Court propounded that " Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage which after filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, or to delay the trial which enable to win over the witness or may disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of Justice" . In again yet another judgment, in the case of

¶12

Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781 , the Apex Court has propounded "Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself." While interpreting this jurisdiction of High Court Apex Court, in the case of Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296, has propounded "High Court can exercise jurisdiction suo motu in the interest of justice. It can do so while exercising other jurisdictions such as appellate or revisional jurisdiction. No formal application for invoking inherent jurisdiction is necessary. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of substantive as well as procedural matters. It can as well be exercised in respect of incidental or supplemental power irrespective of nature of proceedings".

¶13

Regarding prevention of abuse of process of Court, Apex Court, in the case of Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494, has propounded "To prevent abuse of the process of the Court, High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482, could quash the proceedings, but, there would be justification for interference only when the complaint did not disclose any offence or was frivolous vexatious or oppressive" as well as in the case of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1 , Apex Court propounded "In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not".

¶14

Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above.

¶15

In view of what has been discussed above, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., merits dismissal and it stands dismissed accordingly.

¶16

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below

¶17

within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶18

For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶19

In case, if the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶20

Order Date :- 13.1.2020/bgs/

Pragati Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Andther

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pragati Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Andther

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

Umesh Yadav and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Rita Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Veerpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Prasad Budhia and Another Vs State of U.P. and Andther

Rajani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others