Dismissed

Dhananjay Saroj and 7 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC27 May 2022A482/4105/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. It held that the matter involved factual inquiries and credibility assessments unsuitable for inherent powers. The application was refused, but bail consideration was expedited if applicants appeared within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of proceedings refused. Bail to be considered expeditiously if applicants appear within 30 days.

Dhananjay Saroj and 7 Others Vs State of U.P.and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4105 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dhananjay Saroj And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for quashing of the summoning order dated 05.03.2021 as well as the entire proceeding of Case No.146/2021 (State Vs. Dhananjay and others), Case Crime No.242/2017, under Section 147, 148, 308, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Gambhirpur, District Azamgarh, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the first information report of this case was lodged making false and baseless allegations. It was stated that in fact regrading the incident dated 12.10.2017, applicant no.8 has lodged a first information report against the family members of opposite party no.2 and others, under section 147, 148, 323, 506, 308 and 380 IPC and after eight days of the same, the first information report of instant case has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 against applicants. No date and time of alleged incident has been mentioned in the first information report and that no-one has sustained any injuries in the alleged incident. It was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicants.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this

¶9

stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶10

The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal , Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

¶11

In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

¶12

After considering arguments raised by the learned counsel for

¶13

parties and perusing the impugned proceedings and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 482 Cr.PC. This Court cannot hold a parallel trial in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No such ground appears to be available to the applicants, on the basis of which the impugned proceedings can be quashed going by the settled law in 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 Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

¶14

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing of impugned proceedings is refused.

¶15

However, keeping in view the facts of the matter, it is directed that in case, applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with settled law. For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants surrender before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is disposed of finally.

¶17

Order Date :- 27.5.2022 Neeraj

¶18

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.05.28 16:20:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dhananjay Saroj and 7 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjay Saroj and 7 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

Uma Shankar Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P and Another

Parvej Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Malati Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shabeena Vs State of U.P. and Another