Dismissed

Ashok Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home and Another

Allahabad HC17 May 2022A482/26576/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court held that since determination of factual questions exceeded its jurisdiction, the prayer was refused, but the case was not dismissed to encourage a premature trial.

What did the court decide?

Application refused; no coercive action shall be taken pending surrender within 30 days and bail application considered expeditiously.

Ashok Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. through… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26576 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ashok Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

The present application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings including charge-sheet dated 20.09.2020 and cognizance/summoning order dated 04.10.2021 in Case Crime No. 0367 of 2020 (State vs. Ashok Kumar and others), under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 and 308 IPC, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Etah, P.S. Jaithra, District Etah.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the first information report of this case has been lodged making false and baseless allegations and applicants were not involved in the incident. It was stated that regarding the alleged incident, a cross case was lodged from the side of applicants vide FIR No. 397 of 2020, under Section 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. Learned counsel has referred the statement of witnesses and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

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 or 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 .

¶13

Similarly so far as the impugned summoning order is concerned, perusal of material on record shows that the impugned order has been passed by applying due procedure and no substantial illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out. It is well settled that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised by the High Court, inter alia, to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are very wide but the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The inherent power can not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Such powers have to be exercised only to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case no case for quashing of impugned order is made out.

¶14

Accordingly, the prayer as made above is refused.

¶15

However, keeping in view the facts of the matter, it is directed that in case, applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in

¶16

accordance with settled law. For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants surrender before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is disposed of finally.

¶18

Order Date :- 17.5.2022 A. Tripathi

¶19

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.05.17 20:24:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashok Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home 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

Rahman Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zuilfikar and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Shanker @ Rauki and 6 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Mahendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Dulare Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

Prem Shankar Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Another