Dismissed

Vinod Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2022A482/14138/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash summoning order and criminal proceedings for alleged assault and Provoking words. The Court held that evaluation of evidence was impermissible at that stage and there was no abuse of process of court to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 22.03.2022 and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 414 of 2021 are not liable to be quashed.

Vinod Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14138 of 2022 Applicant :- Vinod Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A for the State and also perused the record.

¶4

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 22.03.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 414 of 2021 (Sushil Kumar Vs. Vinod Kumar and others), under Sections 392, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj, pending in the court of Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Additional District & Sessions Judge/FTC, Room No.2, Kannauj.

¶5

The main submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that complaint was filed by opposite party no.2 against the applicants on 14.12.2021 with the allegation that on 07.12.2021, complainant was assaulted. After the statement opposite party no.2 and other witnesses, recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and after perusing medical examination, applicants were summoned by the Trial Court. The main ground for quashing is that allegations made in complaint does not support the medical evidence. Injury does not corroborate the medical testimony. There is material contradiction in the statement of witnesses and complainant. Applicants have been falsely implicated due to civil litigation in Case No.726 of 2020. Father of the complainant also moved application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as complaint no.122 of 2021. An application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by one Shiv Nath (applicant no.3) stating therein that in Complaint No.122 of 2021, Court has directed to preserve CCTV footage. Several complaints were made by the applicants before the higher police authorities in respect of creating hindrance in reconstruction of temple over Gram Samaj Land. Opposite party no.2 is a hardened criminal. The whole case is based on frivolous and false facts.

¶6

Learned AGA opposed the prayer of quashing the summoning order and criminal complaint case. Reliance is placed in the case of Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. State of Bihar and others (2019) 6 SCC 107. Appreciation of evidence at the stage of 482 Cr.P.C. impermissible. Pendency of civil proceedings between

¶7

the parties is not a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. Thus, the submission of the applicants that there is civil dispute and on this ground, this proceedings cannot be quashed. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that injuries does not corroborate the medical testimony should not be adjudged at the stage of summoning. This fact shall be considered after evidence of the parties. Few applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. have also been moved by the father of the complainant against the applicants is a different matter, it is not related to this case. In this case, complainant has sustained injuries. At the stage of summoning, evaluation of the evidence is not required by law. Only prima facie case has to be seen by the Trial Court.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant no.1 Vinod Kumar Kushwaha is working as lecturer and he is son of Gaon Pradhan, so the opponents are intended to implicate falsely.

¶9

On the basis of above discussion, this Court is of the view that present criminal proceeding is not mala fide, malicious with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused.

¶10

It would not be proper to start trial under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the actual trial. There appears no abuse of process of any Court and it is not a fit case to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.

¶11

The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations and appreciate the evidence if any available on record. Normally, the High Court would not intervene in the criminal proceedings at the preliminary stage when the investigation/enquiry is pending .

¶12

On the basis of above discussion, this Court is of the view that nothing appears as abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. Summoning order dated 22.03.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 414 of 2021 (Sushil Kumar Vs. Vinod Kumar and others), under Sections 392, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj, pending in the court of Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Additional District & Sessions Judge/FTC, Room No.2, Kannauj, is not liable to be quashed.

¶13

Thus, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no force and is dismissed, accordingly.

¶14

Order Date :- 11.7.2022/Priya

¶15

Digitally signed by PRIYA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.07.12 16:47:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar and 3 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

Anil Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deenbandhu Ghosh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anwar Ali Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Yogesh Urf Golu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munna Khan Vs State of U.P.and Another

B.L. Tiwari @ Jayant Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another