The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a complaint or summoning order. The Court held that the allegations constitute a prima facie case and the matter requires trial court adjudication on facts.
Application dismissed; no coercive action for two months if applicant surrenders and applies for bail.
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. - 45
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26557 of 2022
Applicant :- Vijay Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Km. Surabhi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pavan Kumar
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 08.08.2022 passed by Additional District Judge/ F.T.C.-II, Bijnor in Criminal Revision No. 262 of 2021 as well as summoning order dated 22.10.2021 issued by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2 Nagina, District-Bijnor in Complaint Case No. 1864 of 2021 under Section 452, 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali Dehat, District Bijnor with an alternative prayer to stay the further proceedings of the above mentioned case.
From perusal of the record it appears that summoning order has been passed on the basis of the evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. It has been alleged that the matter pertains to a civil dispute, however from the perusal of the summoning order and record it appears that there is no ground to interfere with the summoning order. As a matter of fact Criminal Revision No. 262 of 2021 was also preferred against the summoning order, which was dismissed on 8.8.2022 by the learned Additional District Judge/ F.T.C.-II, Bijnor.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA. and have gone through the materials available on record carefully and I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.
The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustrations which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to
believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
The submissions made by the applicant's counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the FIR/ complaint, and also the material available on record make out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the FIR/ complaint or the summoning order or the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
Hence, it is directed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within two months from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of two months from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants to surrender before the Court concerned.
However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the competent Court below is to act, in accordance with law.
This application stands disposed off accordingly.
Order Date :- 11.11.2022 Fhd
Digitally signed by FAHAD NIYAZ Date: 2022.11.15 17:24:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the FIR, complaint, and summoning order is sustainable.
Whether the case falls within the categories recognized by the Apex Court for quashing criminal proceedings.
Whether a pre-trial adjudication on the facts is required to quash the proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶9
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa KonjalgiReferred¶9
Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vijay Kumar And 3 Others
State of U.P.
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
Fahad Niyaz
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
