The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings and chargesheet. The court held that the victim's statement regarding elopement did not negate allegations of physical assault supported by medical evidence, and no prima facie case was missing to prevent interference.
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. - 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27368 of 2021
Applicant :- Mohan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.170/2021, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, District - Aligarh as well as charge Sheet dated 21.11.2019, arising out of Case Crime No.85/2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506 & 452 I.P.C., Police Station - Barla, District -Aligarh. It has further been prayed to stay the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not at all involved in missing of the daughter of the informant. He has further submitted that the daughter of the informant is major and she herself ran away with the coaccused Ajay. It is further submitted that the daughter of the informant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she on her sweet will had gone with co-accused Ajay and solemnized the marriage with him and the same can be verified from the chargesheet submitted by the police, the relevant portion of the chargesheet is at Page 51 of the paper book, hence no offence is made out against the applicant as far as it is related to the missing / eloping of the daughter of the applicant with the co-accused Ajay (son of the applicant).
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that after the thorough investigation, the chargesheet has been filed under Sections 323, 504, 506 & 452 I.P.C. against the present applicant and no chargesheet has been filed against co-accused Kallu S/o Shyam Babu. It is further submitted that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial by adducing evidence and, therefore, the petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, prima facie, it is found that the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that after the statement of
victim i.e. daughter of the informant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as mentioned above, the allegation of physical assault will also go, is not acceptable. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is only about the solemnizing of the marriage with the son of the applicant. As far as the allegation of physical assault by the applicant for which the chargesheet has been filed, at this stage, it can not be said that after the statement of the victim i.e. daughter of the informant recorded under Section 164Cr.P.C., the allegation of physical assault will also go, specifically when the said allegation is supported by medical evidence i.e. injury report.
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. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings 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 the 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, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843, TGN Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in 2011 2 SCC 772 and lastly Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in 2019 SCC Online 948.
In view of above, this petition is devoid of merit and hence no interference is required. not
Petition under Section 482 is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.5.2022 S. Kumar
Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR Date: 2022.05.18 18:03:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations of physical assault and other offences against the applicant are such that proceedings cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. regarding elopement negatives the offence of physical assault supported by medical evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶11
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶11
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶11
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶11
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of GujaratReferred¶11
Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843 · Who else cites this
TGN Kumar Vs. State of KeralaReferred¶11
TGN Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in 2011 2 SCC 772 · Who else cites this
Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra PradeshReferred¶11
Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in 2019 SCC Online 948 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohan Singh
State of U.P.
Manish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
