Dismissed

Mashud Ahmad and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2020A482/632/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. It held that disputed facts, allegations of false implication, and civil disputes with prior notices cannot be adjudicated at the quashing stage. The existence of a prima facie case based on the FIR precluded the quashing of the challan.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; challan in Case Crime No. 6 of 2018 maintained.

Mashud Ahmad and Another Vs State of Up and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 632 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Mashud Ahmad And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Chandra Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by accused-applicants for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 739 of 2019 and Case Crime No. 6 of 2018 (State Vs. Mashud Ahmad and others), under Sections 447, 448, 504, 506, 427 IPC, Police Station Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants are innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to malafide intention. They have not committed any offence. There is a civil dispute between the parties and it is a gross abuse of the process of the Court. Applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that Investigating Officer did not find any sufficient evidence and has wrongly filed charge sheet against them. Father of opposite party No. 2 executed a sale deed in favour of the applicants and a civil dispute is already pending between the parties. Opposite party lodged a forged report against them concealing the real facts. He showed some documents and statements in support of his contentions.

¶8

On query being made by the Court whether documents/sale deed were brought to the notice of Investigating Officer or not? Learned counsel for the applicants fairly conceded that these documents were not before Investigating Officer, even Investigating Officer neither recorded the statement of the applicants nor collected any documents from them.

¶9

Learned AGA, on the other hand, opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that accused applicants are named in the FIR; Investigating Officer properly investigated the matter, found sufficient evidence and submitted charge-sheet against them. All the submissions are of facts which cannot be determined at this stage.

¶10

Evidently, Informant-Fatima submitted a written tehrir against

¶11

accused persons whereupon a Case Crime No. 6 of 2018 came to be registered against the accused persons. The matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer, who found sufficient evidence and submitted charge-sheet against the applicants.

¶12

In Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar and others, (2019) 6 SCC 107 , Court observed, as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in paras 15, 16 and 17 is as under :

¶13

" 15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.

¶14

16. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence.

¶15

17. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case. "

¶16

(emphasis added)

¶17

Upon consideration over all circumstances of the case, rival contentions made by learned counsel for the parties, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Court in Cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 192 and Zandu

¶18

Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (para-10) 2005 S.C.C. (Cr.) 283.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid discussion and law laid down by the Courts, I do not find any legal or otherwise error, illegally or irregularity in the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer.

¶20

Application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶21

Order Date :- 17.1.2020 Ujjawal

Mashud Ahmad and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mashud Ahmad and Another v. State of Up 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

Chhanga Prasad and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivdas Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Lal Chandra and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Pratima Devi Vs State of Up

Prabhu Harizan and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Amir Chand Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another