High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated by complaint due to factual disputes and lack of mala fide. Court directed bail to be considered expediently if applied within 30 days.
Prayer for quashing refused; bail application to be filed within 30 days for expedient consideration.
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. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12975 of 2022
Applicant :- Ambuj Pandey And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Priyanka Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.
The present application has been filed for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 02.01.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.922/2022 (State vs. Ambuj Pandey and another), arising out of Case Crime No.127/2021, under Section 323, 506 and 308 IPC, P.S. Mehnajpur, District Azamgarh, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-23, Azamgarh.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that both the parties belong to same extended family and essentially the dispute between the parties is related to property and that in that connection, a complaint was already made before the Subdivisional Magistrate. It was submitted that first information report of this case has been lodged making false and baseless allegations, just to exert undue pressure upon the applicants. The injured has not sustained any serious injuries. Learned counsel has referred the statements of injured and other witnesses and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicants. It was also submitted that applicants are willing to appear before the court below and that a direction may be made to the court below to decide the bail application of applicant in view of guidelines propounded in Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and ors, reported in 202(4) Crimes 139 (SC) case.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and argued that in the alleged incident, the injured has sustained several injuries and that in view of statements of injured and other witnesses, a prima facie case is made out against them.
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.
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.
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 charge-sheet and 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 .
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing of impugned proceedings is refused.
However, keeping in view the facts of the matter, it is directed that in case, applicants file an application for bail in accordance with law, within 30 days from today, 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 apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 30.5.2022 Neeraj
Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.06.02 09:53:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge-sheet and criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 506, and 308 IPC can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on allegations of malice.
Whether questions of fact and credibility of evidence are adjudicable in a quashing application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶8
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and ors, 202(4) Crimes 139 (SC)
State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan LalReferred¶10
AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal · Who else cites this
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabDistinguished¶13
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalDistinguished¶13
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaDistinguished¶13
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqDistinguished¶13
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ambuj Pandey
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
