This court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a summoning order. The applicant argued the FIR was a counter-blast and he was alibi, but the court held these are disputed factual issues for the trial court.
The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the summoning order is 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. - 16
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7312 of 2018
Applicant :- Devi Gharan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gulam Mustafa Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Md. Zishan,Mohd. Salman
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA and perused the record.
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the summoning order dated 29.05.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Unnao in Criminal Case No. 417 of 2018, under Section 354 IPC, Police Station Bangarmau, District Unnao.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR dated 26.09.2013 has been lodged by the respondent no.2 against the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner has lodged an FIR dated 21.09.2013 against the respondent no. 2. It is further submitted that the FIR dated 26.09.2013 has been lodged against the petitioner for the offence alleged to be occurred on 26.09.2013 whereas on the said date, petitioner was not present in the institute and in support thereof, he drew attention of this Court to the annexure no. 7 to the present petition i.e. the certificate issued by the Khand Siksha Adhikari, Ganj Muradabad, Unnao certifying that petitioner was present from 23.09.2013 to 27.09.2013 at B.R.C., Ganj Muradabad, Unnao .
On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned summoning order and submitted that from the FIR and the
statements given under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. offence is made out against the applicant.
After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA, it is found that the submission that FIR dated 26.09.2013 lodged by the respondent no. 2 is a counter blast of the FIR lodged by the petitioner on 21.09.2013 against the respondent no. 2, is not appeared to be correct as the incident alleged to be occurred on 26.09.2013 is a different incident which could be caused by the applicant and for ascertaining the same, the evidence is to be adduced. As far as submission regarding certificate issued by the Khand Siksha Adhikari, Ganj Mooradabad, Unnao is concerned, it is found that training centre, where the applicant was said to be present since 23.09.2013 to 27.09.2013, and the institution where the incident alleged to be committed by the petitioner as per the FIR dated 26.09.2013 lodged by the respondent no. 2 is in the same block i.e. Ganj Muradabad; the time of the alleged incident reported in FIR dated 26.09.2013 is at 5.50 PM that might be after training, thus, it could be said that petitioner could reach the place of incident. In any case the plea of alibi will require proof by adducing evidence in the court below during trial.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only primafacie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843 , TGN Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in 2011 2 SCC 772 and lastly Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in 2019 SCC Online 948 .
In view of above, this petition is devoid of merit and hence no interference is required.
Petition under Section 482 is hereby dismissed . Order Date :- 15.3.2022
Ashish
Digitally signed by ASHISH MISHRA Date: 2022.03.16 11:24:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be quashed given the disputed facts regarding alibi and counter-blast FIR which require trial court adjudication.
Whether a prima facie case is made out against the applicant based on the available material.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶11
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶11
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶11
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶11
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of GujaratReferred¶11
Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843 · Who else cites this
TGN Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and othersReferred¶11
TGN Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and others 2011 2 SCC 772 · Who else cites this
Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anotherReferred¶11
Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another 2019 SCC Online 948 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Devi Gharan
Manish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
