In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings under Section 409 IPC, the single judge held that disputes of fact cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The application lacked merit and was dismissed.
The application for quashing of proceedings was rejected.
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. - 15540 of 2006
Applicant :- Surendra Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Goyal,Nikhil Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
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 proceedings as against the applicant givin rise to Criminal Case No.3875/9 pf 2006 State vs. Ajay Kumar under Section 409 IPC pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budhana as well as the order dated 19.10.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar in the aforesaid criminal case.
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 14:02:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings under Section 409 IPC should be quashed as no offence is disclosed.
Whether disputed questions of fact can be adjudicated upon by this Court 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 HaqReferred¶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
Surendra Pal
State of U.P.
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
