Dismissed

Sonu @ Kapildev and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 May 2022A482/10329/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a charge sheet and cognizance order. The court held that adjudicating facts and credibility fell within the trial court's jurisdiction and found no grounds to quash the proceedings, though a bail direction was issued.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; bail application to be considered expeditiously upon surrender within 45 days with no coercive action in that interim.

Sonu @ Kapildev and 8 Others Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10329 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu @ Kapildev And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

The present application has been filed for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 13.08.2021 and cognizance order dated 08.12.2021 in Case No.1460 of 2021 (State vs. Sonu @ Kapildev and others), arising out of Case Crime No.190 of 2021, under Section 147, 148, 149, 406, 504, 506 and 352 IPC, P.S. Sadabad Kotwali, District Hathras, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Sadabad, Hathras.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the first information report of this case was lodged by the opposite party no.2/complainant making false and baseless allegations. In the alleged incident, no-one has sustained any injuries. According to prosecution version in first information report, the role of firing has been assigned to applicant no.2 Danveer but in the said incident, no-one has sustained any injury and that no specific role has been assigned to other applicants. Learned counsel submitted that in fact there is dispute between the parties, regarding the source of water in the land and that first information report was lodged making false allegations and that investigation has not been conducted properly and charge-sheet was submitted in a routine manner.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this

¶9

stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶10

The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal , Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

¶11

In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

¶12

After considering arguments raised by the learned counsel for

¶13

parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 482 Cr.PC. This Court cannot hold a parallel trial in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No such ground appears to be available to the applicants, on the basis of which the impugned complaint can be quashed going by the settled law in 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 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

¶14

Accordingly, the prayer as made above is refused.

¶15

However, keeping in view the facts of the matter, it is directed that in case, applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with settled law. For a period of 45 days from today or till the applicants surrender before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is disposed of finally.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.5.2022 Neeraj

¶18

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.05.15 08:04:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu @ Kapildev and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu @ Kapildev and 8 Others 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

Seeri @ Shriram Vs State of U.P.

Akash Vaeeshtava Vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary Home Affair U.P. and others

Shani Vs State of U.P.

Lalman and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Naitik Kumar Minor Thru Its Father Mandeep Kumar and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Shraddha Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another