Dismissed

Ram Singh v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2020CRLR/1802/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision against an impugned summoning order under Cr.P.C Section 482 was dismissed. The High Court held that the trial court has disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence, meaning the inherent jurisdiction to quash was not applicable to prevent abuse of process in this instance.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of proceeding refused. Revision dismissed.

Ram Singh Vs State of Up and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1802 of 2020

¶3

Revisionist :- Ram Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Chandra Bhan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Monis

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Chandra Bhan Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Mohd. Monis, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶6

This revision has been preferred seeking the quashing of impugned summoning order dated 7.08.2020 including order dated 14.02.2020 passed by A.C.J.M. Court No.1, Fatehpur in Case No.1127 of 2020 (State Vs. Ram Singh) in Case Crime No.368 of 2018, under sections 452, 376, 506 and 504 IPC, P.S. Ghazipur, Districr Fatehpur as well as further proceedings of the aforesaid case pending in the court of ACJM, Court No.1, Fatehpur.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that no offence against the revisionist is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. The impugned order against the revisionist in perfunctory manner and the court below without applying judicious mind when no prima facie offence is made out against the revisionist.

¶8

Per contra, the learned AGA has contended that from the allegations made in the FIR prima facie offence is made out against the revisionist. The innocence of the revisionist cannot be adjudged at the pre trial stage. Therefore, the revisionist does not deserve any indulgence.

¶9

From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the revisionist.

¶10

At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:- (i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR

¶11

1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192.

¶12

From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.

¶13

The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing of proceeding is refused. There is no merit in this revisionist filed revision, thus the same is accordingly dismissed. The revisionist has ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.

¶14

However, the revisionist is directed to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail within a period of thirty days from today, the prayer for bail shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the Public Prosecutor.

¶15

In case, the revisionist fails to surrender within the stipulated period, the court below shall take appropriate action against him.

¶16

Order Date :- 15.12.2020

¶17

SFH

Ram Singh v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh 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

Dr. Swamideen Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Rajpoot @ Babloo Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Bahadur (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Yogesh Vs State of Up

Asif Khan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another