Dismissed

Udham Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2021A482/9119/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court analysed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings alleging offences under the IPC. It held that the facts called for trial and did not fall under categories warranting quashing, thus dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

Application was disposed of; no interference with the criminal proceedings was granted.

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

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9119 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Udham Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. appearing for State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash charge sheet no.155 of 2020 dated 30.05.2020, cognizance order dated 07.08.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Agra and entire criminal proceeding of Case Crime No.145 of 2020 under Sections 452, 323, 325, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Malpura,District Agra.

¶7

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. The charge-sheet indicates that cognizance offences are made out against the applicants.

¶8

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA. and have gone through the materials available on record carefully and I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the applicants.

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

¶10

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

¶11

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 applicants 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

With the above observation, this application stands disposed of .

¶18

Order Date :- 2.9.2021 MN/-

Udham Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udham Singh and Another 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

Abhishek Das Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Satendra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Alishan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailesh Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shashi Kant Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and Another