The Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 482 Cr.P.C., holding that the prosedural submissions disputed questions of fact for the trial court. Bail is ordered if applicants surrender within 30 days.
Quashing of proceedings refused; bail application to be considered if applicants surrender within 30 days.
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. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44267 of 2019
Applicant :- Yogesh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.
The applicants, Yogesh, Ram Ji Lal, Smt. Bhagwan Devi, by means of this application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding, arising from Charge Sheet, dated 14.1.2012, and cognizance taking order, dated 17.5.2012, in Criminal Case No.0023 of 2012, under Sections-498A, 323, 504, 506 and 406 of I.P.C., read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Vrindavan, District-Mathura.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Learned counsel has pointed out towards certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application by contending that all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Considered the rival submissions made by the parties.
The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants call for adjudication on pure questions of fact, which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. Veracity of the statements are
material evidence of fact and is not to be ascertained in this proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. of this Court because the same is within the jurisdiction of Trial Court and is a point of fact to be seen in the trial. In view of law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844, Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474, Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781, Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296, Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr.L.J. 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494, State of Bihar V. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1 , there is no ground for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The prayer for quashing proceeding of the aforesaid criminal case is refused.
However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within thirty (30) days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P .
For a period of thirty (30) days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below, within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.1.2020
bgs/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground of malafide prosecution and harassment.
Whether disputed factual issues regarding the veracity of statements can be adjudicated by this Court before the trial court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty MaheshReferred¶10
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844 · Who else cites this
Hamida v. RashidReferred¶10
Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474 · Who else cites this
Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶10
Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781 · Who else cites this
Popular Muthiah v. StateReferred¶10
Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296 · Who else cites this
Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana KumarReferred¶10
Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr.L.J. 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar V. Murad Ali KhanReferred¶10
State of Bihar V. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶13
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.PReferred¶13
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Yogesh And 2 Others
Ram Krishna Gautam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
