Dismissed

Brij Mohan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2021A482/3486/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings as it involved disputed facts unsuitable for inherent jurisdiction. The applicant subsequently abandoned the quashing prayer, seeking only expedited bail disposal with emphasis on appearing before the lower court within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Relief prayed for (quashing) refused; order directed lower court to decide bail application within one week if applicant surrenders within two weeks.

Brij Mohan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3486 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Brij Mohan Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Gupta,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi learned A.G.A for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the impugned order dated 1.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Banda in complaint case no. 40 of 2017 (Smt. Shivdulari vs. Rajendra Yadav ad others), under Section 323, 504, 452, 354 I.P.C. and 7/8 Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, P.S. Badausa, District Banda.

¶7

It appears that earlier the applicant approached this Court by filing Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4223 of 2018 (Brij Mohan Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another), wherein this Court has passed the following order :

¶8

"This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing the summoning order dated 30.10.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Banda in Complaint Case No. 40 of 2017, under Sections 323/504/452/354 I.P.C. and 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Smt. Shivdulari vs. Rajendra and others, as well as the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case.

¶9

Heard applicant's counsel as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶10

All the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel 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 by learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. In the process of invoking its inherent jurisdiction, this court cannot be persuaded to have a pre trial before the actual trial begins. The submissions made by the learned 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.

¶11

The quashing of the complaint can also be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on

¶12

its basis. The Apex Court decisions in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and also in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of law in this regard clear.

¶13

In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Apex Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.

¶14

As requested, the permission to appear before the concerned lower court within a month from today through the representing counsel and move an application claiming discharge is granted to the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits in accordance with law within a period which shall not exceed a period of four months from today.

¶15

No coercive measures shall be adopted against the accused, on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved, in the aforesaid period of four months or till disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier.

¶16

If the concerned court after hearing the counsel for the accused feels persuaded to have the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. On the other hand if the lower court even after hearing the counsel for accused holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material produced by the complainant does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits.

¶17

It is clarified that if this order is not availed by the accused within the stipulated period of time no application for extension of time shall be entertained.

¶18

It is further clarified that this order has been passed only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved in this Court.

¶19

With the above observations, this application stands disposed off."

¶20

Pursuant to the aforesaid order the applicant filed an application for discharge and the same was rejected vide order dated 26.8.2019. According to the counsel for the applicant against the order dated 26.8.2019 the applicant preferred Criminal Revision No. 2233 of 2019 and the same is still pending consideration.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicants, after making submissions on merits, has fairly submitted that necessary grounds for invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have not been made out in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, he does not wish to press the principal prayer, as made in the application.

¶22

In view of the above, the relief as sought in the instant application, is refused.

¶23

He submits that the applicant is ready to submit to the jurisdiction of the concerned court, seeks bail and accepts all the conditions which this Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The only prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant is for expeditious disposal of his bail application.

¶24

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within two weeks from today and applies for bail, the bail application of the applicant shall be considered and decided by the concerned Court within one week thereafter in accordance with law.

¶25

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶26

Order Date :- 17.2.2021 S.S.

Brij Mohan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brij Mohan Yadav 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

Sri Prakash Mishra 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shrinath Chauhan and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anita Verma Vs State of U.P.

Sharda and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tikatpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Himani Plastics through Proprietor Harinder Pal Singh Rana Vs State of U.P. and Another