Dismissed

Atul v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2021A482/46355/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash orders summoning the accused and issuing a recovery warrant. Holding that the allegations made out a prima facie case, the court refused quashing as the matter involved factual disputes better suited for trial court adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash orders dated 22.8.2016 and 7.9.2018 was refused; application dismissed; interim order vacated.

Atul Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46355 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Atul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

This application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash/set aside order dated 22.8.2016 passed in Misc. Case no. 924 of 2013 (Roly Vs. Atul) under section 125 of Cr.P.C. P.S. Civil Lines, District Badaun as well as order dated 7.9.2018 for issuing recovery warrant to the tune of Rs. 1,43,000/- forthwith.

¶6

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 13.8.2019 reveals that the aforesaid attempt could not succeed and did not bear any fruit for certain reasons. Th court, therefore, deems it fit to decide the matter on merits.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶8

All the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant relates to dispute question 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 applicant. The veracity and credibility of arterial furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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 (Crl.) 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 of 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 along may be the fit cases for the Hijgh 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.

¶13

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

¶14

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 FIR and the material collected by the investigating officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and I do not find any justification to quash the order dated 22.8.2016 as well as order dated 7.9.2018 as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

¶15

The prayer of quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.

¶16

The interim order if any, is vacated and the the application is also dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 14.7.2021 A.

Atul v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul 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

Muskaan@ Naina Vs State of U.P.

Maunu @ Manjit Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sakhi and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Pushpa Vs State of U.P. and another

Smt. Radha Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Alias Ashoo Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another