Dismissed

Anil v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 May 2022A482/11009/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court refused quashing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. involving allegations of outrage of modesty, holding that factual adjudication requires trial court. Court directed bail consideration upon surrender within 30 days and stayed coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Application refused; bail application to be considered expeditiously if applicant surrenders within 30 days; no coercive action for 30 days.

Anil Vs State of U.P. and Another — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11009 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Mohan Singh,Prem Shankar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

By means of this application under section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the summoning order dated 20.01.2022, the chargesheet dated 30.11.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.20 of 2022 (State Vs. Anil), case crime no.152 of 2021, under Section 354 (Ka) and 354 (Kha) IPC, P.S. Madihan, District Mirzapur, pending in the Court of First A.C.J.M. Mirzapur.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and no prima facie case is made out against him. It was submitted that first information report of this case has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 making false and baseless allegations. Alleged incident has been shown of 02.08.2021 but FIR has been lodged on 16.09.2021. In fact there is enmity between the parties and that on 04.08.2021, proceedings under Sections 151, 107 and 116 CrPC were also initiated by the police against both the parties but at that time, no FIR was lodged. Learned counsel submitted that earlier the father of applicant has lodged an FIR under Section 323 and 506 IPC against the complainant and others and in that matter charges were framed by the trial court and after that the first

¶8

information report of this case has been lodged, as a counter blast. Learned counsel submitted that in view of above stated facts, no prima facie case is made out against applicant.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the application and argued that in the first information report as well as in the statement of prosecutrix, recorded under Section 161 and 164 CrPC, she has clearly stated that applicant has caught her and outraged her modesty and that a prima facie case is made out against applicant.

¶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 applicant 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

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

After considering arguments raised by the learned counsel for 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

¶15

Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

¶16

Accordingly, the prayer as made above is refused.

¶17

However, keeping in view the facts of the matter, it is directed that in case, applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with settled law. For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant surrenders before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 13.5.2022 Neeraj

¶20

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.05.17 18:37:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil 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

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

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