Dismissed

Om Prakash and 2 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC13 May 2022A482/10997/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court refused to quash criminal proceedings and the summoning order involving the applicant, noting that facts require trial court adjudication. Despite the refusal, the court allowed bail consideration if the applicant surrenders within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Application refused; bail shall be considered expeditiously if applicants surrender within 30 days; no coercive action for 30 days.

Om Prakash and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10997 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Om Prakash And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Jatan Yadav 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 the summoning order dated 23.02.2022 and charge-sheet no. 214 of 2021 dated 16.06.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 409 of 2022 (State vs. Om Prakash and others), Case Crime No. 267 of 2021, under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Soron, District Kasganj, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and the first information report of this case has been lodged by the complainant making false and baseless allegations. The applicants have not caused any injury to the injured. Learned counsel submitted that alleged incident has been shown of 30.05.2021 and injured Savitri was medically examined on 01.06.2021 but in injury report, the duration of injuries has been shown 2 to 3 days and thus, it is doubtful that injured has sustained the said injury in the alleged incident. Referring to the statement of witnesses, it has been submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶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 charge-sheet or proceedings 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

Similarly so far as the impugned summoning order is concerned, perusal of material on record shows that the impugned order has been passed by applying due procedure and no substantial illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out. It is well settled that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised by the High Court, inter alia, to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are very wide but the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The inherent power can not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Such powers have to be exercised only to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case no case for quashing of impugned order is made out.

¶15

Accordingly, the prayer as made above is refused.

¶16

However, keeping in view the facts of the matter, it is directed that in case, applicants appear and surrender before the court

¶17

below within 30 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 30 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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 13.5.2022 A. Tripathi

¶20

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.05.16 15:36:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Om Prakash and 2 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash and 2 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

Rahul Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babu Lal @ Babu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhagwan Singh Contactor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kallo and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Omkar Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Anil Vs State of U.P. and Another