Dismissed

Satyabhan Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2021A482/10030/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and cognizance under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held that the allegations prima facie out an offence under IPC and quashing is an exception. Applicants were directed to surrender and apply for bail within thirty days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Applicants directed to surrender and apply for bail within thirty days.

Satyabhan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10030 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Satyabhan Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dileep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants through video conferencing, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.445 of 2019 (State Vs. Satyabhan and others) arising out of Case Crime No.145 of 2016, under Sections 308, 323, 325, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Vishungarh, District Kannauj as well as Charge Sheet No.67 of 2016 dated 23.08.2016 and Cognizance Order dated 08.03.2019, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants are disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.

¶8

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

¶9

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

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

¶11

(Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 .

¶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 the entire criminal proceeding and charge sheet as well as cognizance order is refused. There is no merit in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The applicants have ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.

¶14

However, the applicants are 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 applicants fail to surrender within the stipulated period, the court below shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed of .

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶18

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶19

Order Date :- 9.7.2021 Atul

Satyabhan Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyabhan Singh and 2 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

Sushil Kumar @ Mantu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Sarita and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar Dubey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Sabir Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shamsul HUDA Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Chaturvedi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another