Dismissed

Dhakan Lal and 4 Ors. v. State of Up and Anr.

Allahabad HC14 Jan 2020A482/476/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. It held that the existence of a prima facie case existed and factual disputes are for the trial court, dismissing the plea of abuse of process but directing consideration of bail upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; 30-day period granted to appear for bail consideration without coercive action.

Dhakan Lal and 4 Ors. Vs State of Up and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 476 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Dhakan Lal And 4 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Bhatt 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, Dhakan Lal and four others, with a prayer for quashing of entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2633 of 2018, Basanti Devi vs. Dhakan Lal and others, under Sections 452 and 323 of IPC, Police Station-Jaitipur, DistrictShahjahanpur, pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur.

¶6

Learned counsel for applicants argued that it is a false accusation, under abuse of process of law. There is variance in the statement, recorded, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., than, the contentions made in the complaint. 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 it was filed by the complainant, Basanti Devi, with a contention that there had been dispute in between the parties, but the same was got settled. But, owing to this, accused persons became furious and on 21.11.2018, at about 2.00 PM, Opposite party nos. 2 to 5, under joint mens rea, and armed with weapon, did criminal trespass in the house of complainant and, thereby, assaulted complainant and her husband, wherein, some ornaments were robbed. This contention of the complaint, regarding criminal trespass and assault, is there in the statement, recorded, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., having further corroboration in the statements of Matru Lal and Arendra, recorded, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. On the basis of evidence, collected in the enquiry by the Magistrate, impugned summoning order for

¶9

offences, punishable, under Sections 323 and 452 of IPC has been passed against the applicants. At the stage of passing of order, under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., existence of a prima facie case is to be seen by the Magistrate, by way of application of judicial mind and it was very well there.

¶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 because the same is a question, to be gone into, during course of trial, by the Trial court.

¶11

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".

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 14.1.2020/bgs/

Dhakan Lal and 4 Ors. v. State of Up and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhakan Lal and 4 Ors. v. State of Up and Anr.

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

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

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

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

Sunil Kumar @ Bhanwara and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Devanti Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km Bhuvneshwari and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.