Single judge dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 406 IPC, holding the case involves disputed facts not suitable for pre-trial adjudication.
Prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings was refused; interim order vacated; application 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. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29222 of 2007
Applicant :- Gagan Kumar And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dur Vijay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of impugned entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 19 of 2007, under Section406 IPC, Police Station Nababganj, District Farrukhabad (Parmanand Vs. Gagan Kumar and others pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad.
It seems that in order to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties, the matter was referred to undergo mediation proceedings. The report of Mediation Centre dated 16.07.2008 reveals that the aforesaid attempt could not succeed and did not bear any fruit for certain reasons. The Court, therefore, deems it fit to decide the matter on merits.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned AGA. Perused the record.
All the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicants relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon on behalf of applicants. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants 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 pretrial before the actual trial begins.
The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
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. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
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.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
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 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.
The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the Court's process either.
The interim order, if any, is vacated.
The application therefore stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.7.2021
RPD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where the matter involves disputed questions of fact.
Whether the allegations against the accused constitute a prima facie case warranting the continuation of criminal proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra BoseReferred¶10
Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 · Who else cites this
Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji GhadigaonkerReferred¶10
Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 · Who else cites this
Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa KonjalgiReferred¶10
Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 · Who else cites this
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶11
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalApplied¶11
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gagan Kumar
State of U.P.
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
