The Single Judge rejected an application for quashing orders summoning accused persons in a matrimonial dispute. The court held that it cannot conduct a mini-trial or appreciate evidence at the Section 482 stage and refused to exercise inherent powers.
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. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8143 of 2022 Applicant :- Mohd. Ayub Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Varun Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash impugned summoning order dated 09.05.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad to the extent of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 in Complaint Case No. 1250 of 2016 (Mohd. Ayub Vs. Khan Mohammad and others) under Section 306 I.P.C. Revisional order dated 22.10.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Farrukhabad in Criminal Revision No. 133 of 2019 by which revision has been rejected.
Learned counsel for applicant submitted that this complaint has been filed by Mohd. Ayub father-in-law against opposite party in which Rizwan has been summoned under Section 406 I.P.C. for facing the trial on 09.05.2019 by learned A.C.J.M., Farrukhabad. Against which Criminal Revision No. 133 of 2019 has been filed which has been dismissed by Additional District & Session Judge, Court No.1, Farrukhabad on 22.10.2021. The main submission of the learned counsel for applicant that there is sufficient evidence against opposite party nos. 2, 3 & 4 with regard to offence under Section 406 I.P.C. but trial court has not summoned the said accused in the said offence.
Applicant has opportunity to move an application at the time of charge and prayer for applicant to quash the summoning order dated 09.05.2019 and order of revisional court dated 22.10.2021 is hereby refused.
It is settled law that during in disposal of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court. At the stage of decide the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. Question of facts shall be decided after hearing the evidence of both the parties. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary inherent power which should be exercised sparingly. It is not a fit case in which inherent power should be exercise in favour of the applicant.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is here by rejected.
Order Date :- 22.7.2022 Sharad/-
Digitally signed by SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.07.25 09:14:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to rely on an inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order in a matrimonial dispute despite the lack of a mini-trial by the High Court
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd. Ayub
Om Prakash Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
