Dismissed

Arun Kumar Chaurasia and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2020A482/5067/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant sought quashing of summons and trial proceedings under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The High Court held that disputed questions of fact precluded adjudication at this stage and no prima facie case of abuse of process or miscarriage of justice was shown.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Arun Kumar Chaurasia and 3 Others Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5067 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Arun Kumar Chaurasia And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Diwan Saifullah Khan,Abhishek Ankur Chaurasia

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Diwan Saifullah Khan, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the further proceedings of the Complaint Case No; 252 of 2019 pending in the Court of SC/ST Act, Allahabad, P.S. Shankargarh, District Prayagraj and the consequential order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Allahabad in Complaint Case No 252 of 2019 by means of which the applicants have been summoned to face the trial under Section 504, 506, 427, 435 I.PC. and 3 (2) V of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants contends that applicants have been falsely implicated in a complaint filed by the opposite party no.2 with false and incorrect allegations regarding the alleged incident dated 08.05.2019; that on the application of opposite party no.2, Circle Officer, Prayagraj, upon inquiry, submitted report dated 22.05.2019, which is filed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit, reporting that the complaint of opposite party no.2 is false and again similar inquiry reports were submitted to S.S.P., Allahabad, copy of which have been filed as Annexure-6; that the opposite party no.2 filed a false complaint, in which, upon considering the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P.C., the learned Special Judge has wrongly passed summoning order against the applicants; that no incident did take place on 08.05.2019 and the applicants neither assaulted the opposite party no.2 nor his family members nor abused with caste name nor put his hut on fire; that entire prosecution story is false and incorrect; that the prosecution of the applicants is nothing but abuse of process of the Court; that Civil Suit is pending between the parties, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to this affidavit.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. supported the impugned charge sheet.

¶10

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 applicant has failed to prove any prima facie case.

¶11

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 application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.2.2020 T.S.

Arun Kumar Chaurasia and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Chaurasia and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Suryabhan and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Vinod Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Dharmendra Singh and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Balswaroop Sahu Vs State of Up and Another

Usha Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Anoop Verma Vs State of Up and Another