In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the High Court examined the proprietary material to determine if an offence was disclosed. The court held that disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated at this stage and prima facie case could not be ruled out. Application dismissed.
Application for quashing of prosecution 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. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1230 of 2007
Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar And Others Opposite Party :- Heera Singh And Another Counsel for Applicant :- V.B. Rao,P.K. Rao Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Siya Ram Sahu
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the prosecution of the applicants in Criminal Complaint Case No.310/2005 Heera Singh vs. Chhuna and others under Section 427/504/506 IPC pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
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 applicants at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in 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 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The reliefs as sought by the applicants is refused.
The application lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 7.9.2022 Deepika
Digitally signed by DEEPIKA SINGH Date: 2022.09.14 13:59:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution of applicants under Sections 427, 504, 506 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether prima facie case exists against applicants based on material on record.
Whether disputed questions of fact can be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rakesh Kumar And Others
Gautam Chowdhary J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
