High Court dismissed an Application under Section 482 Cr. PC seeking quashing of F.I.R. charge sheet. Court observed disputed facts required trial, not inherent powers of High Court, as applicants failed to prove no prima facie case out.
Application under Section 482 Cr. PC dismissed. No relief granted to applicants.
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. - 79
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3841 of 2020
Applicant :- Rahul And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Kant Tiwari,Suneel Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Suneel Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings as well as charge-sheet dated 28.11.2018 in S.T. No. 342 of 2019, (State Vs. Rahul and others), arsing out of Case Crime No. 653 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 354Kha of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (r) and 3(1) (s) as well as Section 3(2) (Va) of S.C./S.T. Act, pending in the court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Allahabad.
Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants have been falsely implicated in the highly belated F.I.R. lodged by opposite party no.2 on 11.10.2018 for the alleged incident dated 27.04.2018, through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 07.07.2018; that opposite party no.2 claims to be Bataidar of Shailendra co-sharer of applicants; that Manik Chandra Pandey father of Shailendra has filed civil suit no.1198 of 2018 against mother of applicant no.3 and 4 and another persons, which is pending before Civil Court; that Shailendra assaulted applicant no.4 at his house and committed marpeet regarding which F.I.R. was lodged by applicant no.4 on 30.06.2018 under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C.; that no plausible reason has been given for lodging of F.I.R. with inordinate delay by opposite party no.2; that entire allegations made in F.I.R. lodged by opposite party no.2 are absolutely false and incorrect and no incident ever taken place and F.I.R. has been lodged by Shailendra through his Bataidar as a matter of counter blast; that no offence is made out against applicants.
Per contra learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which require evidence and 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 Supreme Court 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, and the applicants have failed to prove any prima facie case.
In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that learned counsel for the applicants have failed to show that there is any abuse of process of court or likelihood of miscarriage of justice for prevention of which the exercise of inherent powers by this Court is required. The application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed.
However, if the applicants appear before the court below and move application for bail, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 10.2.2020 Md Faisal
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the complaint discloses an offence under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the ground of arrest was proved or prima facie true.
Whether the application for quashing the proceedings is liable to be dismissed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶10
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶10
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶10
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶10
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rahul
State of U.P.
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
