Dismissed

Anita Maurya v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Mar 2022A482/30129/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order in a criminal case arising under Section 326 IPC, the High Court held that examination of defence and evidence is beyond its jurisdiction at this stage. The facts disclose prima facie offences, and the application was disposed of allowing a discharge application at the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; no opinion expressed on merits; liberty granted to move discharge application before the trial court.

Anita Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30129 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Anita Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shoar Mohammad Khan,Syed Nadeem Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. appearing for State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash charge sheet dated 18.11.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 12.10.2020 along with entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No.385 of 2020 (State Versus Anita Maurya), arising out of Case Crime No. 144 of 2019, under Section 326 I.P.C., P. S.-Muhammadabad, DistrictGhazipur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Muhammadbad, Ghazipur.

¶7

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that prima facie offences are made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶8

Similarly, while considering a prayer for quashing of charge sheet in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court also cannot examine any defence of accused, which has yet to be placed before Court below. Stage of placing defence of accused does not arise at the stage of charge sheet and, therefore, this Court also will not examine such defence at this stage.

¶9

Time and again it has been highlighted by Supreme Court that at the stage of charge sheet factual query and assessment of defence evidence is beyond purview of scrutiny under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The allegations being factual in nature can be decided only subject to evidence. In view of settled legal proposition, no findings can be recorded about veracity of allegations at this juncture in absence of evidence. Apex Court has highlighted that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be sparingly/rarely invoked with complete circumspection and caution. Very recently in Criminal Appeal No.675 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1151

¶10

of 2018) (Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) decided on 15th April, 2019 , Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under :

¶11

" 15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.

¶12

The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence.

¶13

In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case." (Emphasis added)

¶14

Recently, above view has been reiterated by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2020 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Yogendra Singh Jadon and Another) decided on 31.01.2020 .

¶15

No material irregularity in the procedure followed by Court below has been pointed out. It is not a case of grave injustice justifying interference in this application at this stage.

¶16

In view thereof, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in charge-sheet. However, the applicant is at liberty to move discharge application at an appropriate stage before the trial court concerned which shall be

¶17

considered and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law, considering entire aspects of the case.

¶18

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.

¶19

With the above observation, this application stands disposed of .

¶20

Order Date :- 29.3.2022

¶21

MN/-

¶22

Digitally signed by MAHENDRA NATH Date: 2022.03.30 13:17:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anita Maurya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Maurya 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

Smt. Pratiksha Chaturvedi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gulafasha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt.Chandani Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj Garg and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Divan Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Naresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others