Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an order summoning the applicant for trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. held no illegality or abuse of process was shown, and disputed facts were not adjudicable at this stage.
Application was dismissed; bail application to be disposed expeditiously if filed.
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. - 5052 of 2020
Applicant :- Satyam Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.9.2019 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Fatehpur in Special Trial No.55 of 2014 (State Vs. Chandrakant Tiwari and others), arising out of Case Crime No.128 of 2014, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(i)x S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Bakewar, District Fatehpur.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant was falsely implicated in the F.I.R. lodged by opposite party no.2 and upon investigation was not charge-sheeted; that during trial of co-accused persons upon application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the trial court has summoned applicant for trial together with co-accused for the offences under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(i)x S.C./S.T. Act; that impugned order is bad on facts and law; that learned trial court in deciding application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has failed to consider the principles laid down by Apex Court in various judgments and has not even held a prima-facie case against applicant; that prosecution of applicant in furtherance of order passed on application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. will amount to abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. supporting impugned order, contended that impugned order is revisable and application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable; that otherwise also there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order; that learned trial court has considered the fact that applicant Satyam Tiwari was not only named by prosecution witnesses in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but P.W.-1 Jairam, P.W.-2 Mahesh Mishra and P.W.-3 Ravendra have also given sufficient evidence against him and considered the principles laid down by Apex Court in the case of Y. Saraba Reddy Vs. Puthur Rami Reddy, 2007(3)A CR 2438 (SC), has rightly held that satisfaction of I.O. may not be given preference else the purpose of provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. will frustrate.
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 applicant. 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. 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.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I find that learned trial court upon consideration of statements on oath of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 & P.W.-3 has found sufficient evidence against applicant for his trial together with co-accused persons.
In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned order and there is no 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 applicant appears before the court below and moves application for bail, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 14.2.2020 Kpy
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the inherent powers of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash an order summoning the applicant for trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. alleging abuse of process of court.
Whether the trial court has failed to consider principles laid down by the Apex Court regarding prima facie case before summoning an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Y. Saraba Reddy Vs. Puthur Rami ReddyReferred¶8
Y. Saraba Reddy Vs. Puthur Rami Reddy, 2007(3)A CR 2438 (SC)
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶9
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶9
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶9
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Satyam Tiwari
State Of U.P. And Anr.
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
