Dismissed

Sarala v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2022A482/28094/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding an illicit liquor complaint, holding that factual controversies and evidence appreciation are not permissible at this stage. The applicant was directed to seek bail before the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash charge sheet and cognizance order dismissed; applicant directed to apply for bail before the court below.

Sarala Vs State of U.P. and Another — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 89

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28094 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sarala Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 21.02.2021, cognizance order dated 02.07.2021 and Case No. 1407 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2021, under Section 60(2) U.P. Excise Act, Police Station Madanapur, District Shahjahanpur pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Shahjahanpur with a further prayer to stay further proceeding in the aforesaid case.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact the house of the Rakhi wife of Sarvesh was raided. Without collecting evidence and without applying his mind, the Investigating Officer wrongly submitted the charge sheet against the applicant and learned Magistrate took cognizance on the aforesaid charge sheet. No case is made out against the applicant under aforesaid Section, hence this petition.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of quashing and submitted that disputed question of facts have been raised by learned counsel for the applicant which are beyond the scope in proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶9

In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharastra and others, 2020 SCC Online SC 850 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

¶10

"iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare case (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

¶11

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

¶12

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

¶13

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an

¶14

ordinary rule."

¶15

Following other authorities can be cited on the aforesaid point: R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604.

¶16

The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that this Court cannot embark upon the enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint.

¶17

Perusal of the record reveals that the F.I.R. was registered against the applicant under Section 60(2) U.P. Excise Act, Police Station Madanapur, District Shahjahanpur. After collection of evidence and conclusion of investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet and the learned Magistrate took cognizance in the matter thereafter. In the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the appreciation of evidence is not permissible. Factual controversy cannot be settled in these proceedings. Whether the applicant was involved in manufacturing illicit liquor or not, cannot be decided at this stage.

¶18

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

¶19

Learned counsel for applicant requested that order may be passed for expeditious disposal of bail application in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773.

¶20

In view of the above, it is provided that if the applicant apply for bail before the court below, her prayer for bail be considered and decided in view of the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) and Brahm Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others 2016 (95) ACC 950.

¶21

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 15.2.2022 VPS

¶23

Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH SHARMA Date: 2022.02.16 10:27:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarala v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarala v. State of U.P. 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

Khushi Chittodiya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Raj Dev Saroj Vs State of U.P.and Another

Shahrukh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhanbeer Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shameem and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aparna Vs State of U.P. and Another