The High Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. It rejected the applicant's request, holding that assessing the merits of defence evidence is beyond this stage and prima facie offences were made out.
Application to quash charge sheet, cognizance order, and proceedings 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. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6284 of 2021 Applicant :- Dr. Sanjay @ Sanjay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nagendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash charge sheet no.01 of 2019 dated 16.11.2019, cognizance order dated 11.09.2020 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 10222 of 2020 (State of U.P. Versus Dr. Sanjay @ Sanjay), arising out of Case Crime No. 0255 of 2019, under Sections 420 I.P.C. and 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act, P. S.-Musajhaag, District-Budaun, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant holds a medical shop and carries out business of medicines whereas in the F.I.R. itself it is asserted that he is running illegal medical profession.
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 offences are made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar are based on evidences which cannot be scrutinized by this Court at this stage by invoking provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Similarly, while considering a prayer for quashing of charge sheet in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court also cannot examine any defence of accused, which has yet to be placed before Court below. Stage of placing defence of accused does not arise at the stage of charge sheet and, therefore, this
Court also will not examine such defence at this stage.
Time and again it has been highlighted by Supreme Court that at the stage of charge sheet factual query and assessment of defence evidence is beyond purview of scrutiny under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The allegations being factual in nature can be decided only subject to evidence. In view of settled legal proposition, no findings can be recorded about veracity of allegations at this juncture in absence of evidence. Apex Court has highlighted that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be sparingly/rarely invoked with complete circumspection and caution. Very recently in Criminal Appeal No.675 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1151 of 2018) (Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) decided on 15th April, 2019 , Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under :
" 15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.
Recently, above view has been reiterated by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2020 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Yogendra Singh Jadon and Another) decided on 31.01.2020 .
No material irregularity in the procedure followed by Court below has been pointed out. It is not a case of grave injustice justifying interference in this application at this stage.
In view thereof, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in charge-sheet and order of cognizance.
Needless to state that in the eventuality of filing any bail application by the applicant within 30 days from today before the trial Court, it is expected from the trial Court to decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law after considering entire aspect of the matter.
However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the competent Court below is to act, in accordance with law.
With the above observation, this application stands disposed of .
Order Date :- 16.9.2021/MN/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the allegations in the charge sheet and cognizance order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are sustainable without trial evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.Relied on¶9
Criminal Appeal No.675 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1151 of 2018) (Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.)
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Yogendra Singh Jadon and AnotherRelied on¶13
Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2020 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Yogendra Singh Jadon and Another)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Sanjay @ Sanjay
State of U.P.
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
