In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of prosecution for alleged malafide prosecution, the Court held that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated at this stage and that the applicant is entitled to seek discharge before the trial court. The application was 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. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18922 of 2022
Applicant :- Sanjay Goyal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Gaur,Vibhu Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant application has been moved on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to quash the proceedings of Sessions Trial No.2893 of 2021 (State Vs. Duryodhan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0370 of 2021 under Sections 363, 311, 120-B and 370(5) IPC, Police Station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, VIIth, District Aligarh and as well as charge sheet dated 21.10.2021.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant 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. He lastly submits that the applicant has already been enlarged on bail.
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 applicant 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. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The reliefs as sought by the applicant is refused.
The application stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 14.9.2022 SKM
Digitally signed by SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2022.09.15 19:02:44 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quashing proceedings of an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is justified when the prosecution was allegedly in mala fide intention.
Whether disputed questions of facts 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
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sanjay Goyal
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
