Dismissed

Rahman Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 May 2022A482/11629/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings, holding that factual questions require adjudication by the trial court and no prima facie case for quashing based on malice was made out. However, the court directed expedient bail consideration upon surrender within 30 days and imposed a coercive action moratorium.

What did the court decide?

Application prayed refused; directed expedient bail consideration upon surrender within 30 days; no coercive action for 30 days.

Rahman Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11629 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rahman Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan 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 cognizance order dated 23.05.2003 and the charge-sheet dated 12.02.2002 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.931/2003 (State Vs. Jagannath & Others), case crime no.402/2002, under Section 221, 222, 225, 114 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Etawah, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and that no prima facie case is made out against him. It was submitted that at the time of alleged incident, applicant was working as Home Guard Constable and that during departmental enquiry, he was exonerated but later on police have submitted charge-sheet. Learned counsel submitted that no summon or bailable-warrant has been served upon applicant so far and thus, the applicant has no knowledge about the proceedings of the above stated case.

¶8

Learned AGA has submitted that in view of the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, a prima facie case is made out against applicant.

¶9

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties.

¶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 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

In view of the material on record and considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana Vs.

¶13

Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 and State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 , no case for quashing of impugned proceedings, charge sheet or cognizance order is made out. Hence, the prayer as made above is hereby refused.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 16.5.2022 Neeraj

¶17

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.05.20 12:10:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahman Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahman Khan 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

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

Zuilfikar and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Shanker @ Rauki and 6 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Krishan Gopal Jaiswal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another