Dismissed

Narendra Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jun 2022A482/4094/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged a Magistrate's summoning order in a criminal case alleging false allegations and ulterior motives. The Single Judge applied Section 482 Cr.P.C. principles from Supreme Court precedents, held that disputed factual issues require evidence at trial and noted a prima facie case existed. Consequently, the application to quash the summons was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to quash the summoning order is refused; the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Narendra Singh and 4 Others Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Reserved on 19.05.2022

¶2

Delivered on 23.06.2022

¶3

Court No. - 44

¶4

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4094 of 2022

¶5

Applicant :- Narendra Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned A.G.A. on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶8

Present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 21.01.2020 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.05, Meerut in Crl. Complaint Case No.4182 of 2016 (Sandeep Bansal Vs. Narendra Singh and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines, District Meerut.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the complaint was filed on the basis of false facts and also on the basis of malice. It is further submitted that from the version of the complaint as well as statement of witnesses, offence under the aforesaid Sections is not made out against the applicants. There are omnibus allegations in the complaint. The impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity.

¶10

It has been next argued that complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2, who is husband of applicant no. 5 is only to pressurize and humiliate the applicants. Moreover, it is counter attack as earlier applicant no. 5 had moved application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was treated as Complaint Case No.7597/09/2017 (Smt. Komal Vs. Sandeep and others) alleging that she was mal treated and subjected to cruelty on account of non fulfilment of dowry demands. Thereafter, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar vide order dated 15.20.2018 summoned the opposite party

¶11

no.2 and other accused persons. The applicant no. 5 lodged another criminal Complaint Case No.315/9/2019 (Smt. Komal Vs. Sandeep and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Jansath, District Muzaffarnagar and the trial court summoned the opposite party no. 2 on 12.07.2019. Hence, present impugned complaint has been lodged due to ulterior motive. There is no allegation regarding injury in complaint. The complaint has been lodged in the district Meerut whereas the applicants reside in Muzaffarnagar. It is unbelievable that applicant would come from a long distance and assault the respondent no. 2.

¶12

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that applicants have been summoned on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶13

The power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can not be used to scuttle criminal proceeding in routine manner. From the perusal of 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 relates to the disputed question 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 State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 and Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashta A.I.R. 2019 SC 327. In the said judgements, the Court has held that High Court should exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings as an exception and not a rule and it is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution. It has been further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also the law laid down by the Apex Court in the

¶15

¶16

aforesaid judgements, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate while dealing with complaint, at this stage, has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no primafacie case is made out against the applicants. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Learned Magistrate has summoned applicants (accused persons) on the basis of preliminary inquiry conducted by him. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.

¶17

The present application/petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 23.06.2022 Meenu

¶19

¶20

Digitally signed by MEENU SINGH Date: 2022.06.24 18:28:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Narendra Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Singh and 4 Others 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

Keshav Tyagi Vs State of U.P.and Another

Panna Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narayan Dutt Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Dinesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pooran Prasad Gupta Vs State of U.P and Another

Shiv Balak Vs State of U.P.