Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash summoning order in an IPC case involving domestic abuse allegations was refused as disputed facts cannot be adjudicated at this stage. However, surrender is directed to consider bail.
Application to quash dismissed; surrender directed to consider bail application.
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. - 42
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27003 of 2021
Applicant :- Ramdhari And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard Sri Mrityunjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 05.12.2019 in complaint case no.163 of 2019 (Rajmala vs. Ramdhari and others), under Sections 323 and 452 I.P.C., P.S. Hayat Nagar, District Sambhal pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that allegations made in the complaint are totally false and fabricated. The applicants have neither entered into the house of complainant nor abused to her and also not committed marpeet with the complainant. There is no injury case.
From the perusal of the material on record and upon perusal of the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., there is injury and statements are supported with the version of complaint. 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 prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided strictly in
accordance with law.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of . Order Date :- 11.5.2022 Asha
Digitally signed by ASHA Date: 2022.05.12 16:18:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prayer to quash the summoning order in a case under Sections 323 and 452 IPC should be allowed.
Whether the matter is fit for adjudication under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or if it involves disputed questions of fact.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabExplained¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalExplained¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaExplained¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqExplained¶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
Ramdhari And 3 Others
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
