Dismissed

Pintoo @ Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2020A482/5055/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the High Court dismissed the plea to quash a summoning order. The court held the application was frivolous, vexatious, and malafide, finding no abuse of process or miscarriage of justice as the case registration order was not flawed.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed with special costs of Rs.10,000/-.

Pintoo @ Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors. Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5055 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Pintoo @ Sanjay Kumar And 3 Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Tewari,Jai Prakash Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 4.1.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Sonbhadra in pursuance of the Final Report dated 11.5.2018 in S.T. No.67 of 2018 (State Vs. Sujeet and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(Va) S.C./S.T. Act in Case Crime No.206 of 2018, P.S. Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra pending in the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Sonbhadra.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants have been falsely implicated in F.I.R. lodged by opposite party no.2 in which upon investigation final report (A-2) was submitted by I.O.; that due to omission instead of registering the case at F.R. number, the case was registered at S.T. number and process was issued against applicants; that since no offence is proved against applicants, therefore, applicants moved an application on 7.12.2019 for correction and registering it at F.R. number case in place of S.T. number case; that learned trial court acted wrongly and illegally in rejecting application of applicants and directing to issue fresh summons against applicants; that if the impugned order is not quashed and application of applicants dated 7.12.2019 is not allowed, it will cause abuse of process of court.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that upon submission of final report well within its jurisdiction the trial court may (i) either accept final report or (ii) may order further investigation or (iii) if it finds sufficient material on case diary, it may take cognizance under provisions of Section 190(i)(b) Cr.P.C.; that in this case upon submission of final report on 11.5.2018 the trial court upon perusal of case diary found sufficient material of offences against applicants in case diary itself and passed order dated 13.5.2018 taking cognizance of offences and registering the case and consequently S.T. No.67 of 2018 was registered against applicants and process was issued against them; that applicants moved a malafide and misconceived

¶9

application on 7.12.2019 before Sessions Judge mentioning omission in registering it as Sessions Trial, with prayer for registering it as F.R. case; that learned trial court has disposed of the application with reasoned order observing that there is no clerical mistake or omission in the order of cognizance dated 13.5.2018 and the S.T. has been rightly registered after taking cognizance of offence against applicants; that application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. itself is frivolous and vexatious and amounts to abuse of process of court and is malafide and misconceived also; that applicants-accused wants to misguide the court and delay and defraud the sessions trial under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(Va) S.C./S.T. Act

¶10

Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that applicants have not challenged the cognizance order dated 13.5.2018. They very cleverly and mischievously moved a frivolous and vexatious application for correction seeking registration of case at F.R. number instead of S.T. number referring alleged omission. The applicants and at least their learned counsel may not be unaware of the settled legal position that in final report cases the notices are not required to be issued to accused persons and process against accused are only issued upon taking of cognizance. It is settled principle without disputing the correctness of main order of cognizance dated 13.5.2018 subsequent proceedings may not be challenged. From the material on record, it is very much clear that there is no clerical mistake or omission on the part of trial court in registering Sessions Trial and issuing process against accusedapplicants. The application seeking correction of alleged omission or mistake is frivolous, vexatious, malafide and misconceived.

¶11

It is pertinent to mention that applicants have not come with clean hands and have dared to move application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with malafide intention to misguide Court which amounts to abuse of process of Court. Such a frivolous and vexatious application is liable to be rejected with special costs.

¶12

In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that learned counsel for the applicant has 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 applicants have made abuse of process of Court for prevention of which their application which is frivolous, vexatious, malafide and mischevious and is devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed with special costs of Rs.50,000/-.

¶13

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

However, on request of learned counsel for applicants cost is reduced to Rs.10,000/- which will be deposited with Registrar General within 30 days from today.

¶15

Order Date :- 14.2.2020 Kpy

Pintoo @ Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintoo @ Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratnesh @ Ratansen Chaudhary Vs State of Up and Another

Ram Lakhan Vs State of Up and Another

Chandra Bhawan Vs State of Up and Another

Rajpal and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Satyam Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Anchal Anjariya and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.