The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of cognizance and proceedings. Relying on co-ordinate precedents, the court held the application was not maintainable as the applicants failed to challenge the summoning order.
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. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4634 of 2022
Applicant :- Nazma Khatoon And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Mohan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 19.11.2021, cognizance order dated 23.12.2021, as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.33692/2021 (State Vs. Nazma Khatoon & others), Case Crime No.54/2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 188, 269, 270 IPC and 3 Epidemic Act, 51 Disaster Management Act & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Dumariyaganj, District Siddharth Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the first information report of this case has been lodged making false and baseless allegations and that the charge-sheet has been submitted in a routine manner without conducting fair investigation. It was stated that earlier opposite party no.2 has filed a complaint case against applicants in the year 2015 which is still pending and that opposite party no.2 is residing at her parental home last eight years. It was submitted that impugned proceedings are of the abuse of process of court.
Learned AGA has opposed the application.
It may be observed that in the instant matter, applicants have not impugned the summoning order, passed by the Court below, nor the copy of the same has been appended along with the
instant application under Section 482 CrPC. By the order dated 23.12.2021 only cognizance has been taken and thus, it is not clear whether, the applicants have been summoned so far or not. In view of the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in case of Simplex Infrastructures and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in Laws (All) 2018 (11)70 and Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another (Application under Section 482 CrPC No.1361 of 2021), decided on 22.01.2021, it is apparent that in absence of any challenge to the summoning order, the proceedings of that case cannot be quashed and such an application at behest of accused is not maintainable. In the instant case, there is no challenge to the summoning order.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Liberty are granted to the applicants to file fresh application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by seeking a challenge to the summoning order, if any, passed by the court below as well as all other reliefs as may be available to him.
Certified copy of the impugned order may be returned to the learned counsel for the applicants after retaining the photo copy of the same.
Order Date :- 25.5.2022 Neeraj
Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.05.26 18:20:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings is maintainable in the absence of a challenge to the summoning order.
Whether the proceedings without impugned summoning order can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Simplex Infrastructures and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶10
Simplex Infrastructures and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in Laws (All) 2018 (11)70
Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶10
Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another
Nazma Khatoon
State of U.P
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
