The Single Judge dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings and cognizance, stating that disputed factual defenses could not be adjudicated at this stage. No prima facie case for interference was found.
The application to quash criminal case proceedings and cognizance order was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2007 of 2021 Applicant :- Rajesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 47 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 173 of 2018, State of U.P. v. Rajesh, under Sections 406, 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Pilua, District Etah pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Etah as well as the cognizance order dated 03.01.2019 passed in the aforesaid case.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there was previous enmity between the parties and as such, the first information report has been lodged for the purposes of harassment and the learned Magistrate has failed to take into consideration the factual and legal aspect of the matter while summoning the applicants.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and submitted that upon investigation charge-sheet has been submitted and the learned Magistrate has rightly taken the cognizance which need no interference.
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 applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed question of fact, which 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 the Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 ; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 ; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri) 192 ; and, lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10), 2005 SCC (Cri) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. The application is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.2.2021
SKT/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Magistrate's cognizance under Sections 406, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC requires quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur v. State of PunjabReferred¶7
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶7
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. P.P. SharmaReferred¶7
State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶7
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10), 2005 SCC (Cri) 283 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajesh
State of U.P.
Vivek Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
