Dismissed

Rafikuddin and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2021A482/2509/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking to quash criminal proceedings arising from a police complaint, the Single Bench held that the submissions involved disputed questions of fact and did not fall under established categories for quashing. The court found a prima facie case existed and disposed of the application without interference.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash proceedings, charge-sheet and cognizance order dismissed. No interference required.

Rafikuddin and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2509 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rafikuddin And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

I have heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA and have gone through the material available on record carefully.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 987 of 2020 (State Vs. Rafikuddin & Others) as well as charge-sheet dated 20.8.2020 and cognizance order dated 23.11.2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 131 of 2020 under Section 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Rudhauli, District- Basti, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.9, Basti. Further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case has also been made.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that regarding the incident dated 11.8.2020 the complainant made a complaint at the concerned police station consequently the applicants were challaned under Section 151/107/116 Cr.P.C. and subsequently they were released by the concerned S.D.M. It is further submitted that the complainant was not satisfied with the action taken against the applicants, therefore, he lodged the F.I.R. of the same incident against the applicants.

¶8

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that prima facie cognizable case is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the Bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CR.P.C. I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt.

¶10

Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.

¶11

The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 . The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.

¶12

Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.

¶13

The submissions made by the applicant's counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the complaint, and also the material available on record make out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the complaint or the summoning order or the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

¶14

No interference is required by this Court.

¶15

Needless to state that in the eventuality of filing any bail application by the applicant before the trial Court, it is expected

¶16

from the trial Court to decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law after considering entire aspect of the matter.

¶17

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the competent Court is to act in accordance with law.

¶18

With the above observation, this application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶19

Order Date :- 1.9.2021 S.Verma

Rafikuddin and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafikuddin and 7 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

Nanhey Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashwani @ Monu Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aakash @ Aaka Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others