Dismissed

Dharmatma Chaudhary and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jun 2022A482/9308/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the application to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that facts require adjudication by the trial court. However, the Court directed that bail be considered expeditiously if the applicants surrender within 30 days and no coercive action be taken during this period.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash proceedings dismissed; bail to be decided expeditiously if applicants surrender within 30 days; no coercive action for 30 days.

Dharmatma Chaudhary and 6 Others Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9308 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dharmatma Chaudhary And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava 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

By means of this application under section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 243 of 2021 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 325, 308 IPC, P.S. Rudhauli, District Basti, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (First), Basti.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the FIR has been filed making false and baseless allegations and that no specific role has been assigned to the applicants. Learned counsel further submitted that none of the injured has sustained any dangerous injury and thus, no case under section 308 IPC is made out against the applicants. Investigation has not been conducted properly and chargesheet has been submitted in a routine manner. It has been submitted that the allegations made by the complainant are thoroughly false and that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants and, thus, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has submitted that in view of the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, a prima facie case is made out against applicants.

¶9

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties.

¶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

¶11

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.

¶12

In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant 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.

¶13

In view of the material on record and considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 and State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 , no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Hence, the prayer as made above is hereby refused.

¶14

However, keeping in view the facts of the matter, it is directed that in case the 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 the 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 them in the aforesaid case.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 6.6.2022 Madhurima

¶17

Digitally signed by MADHURIMA GARG Date: 2022.06.07 14:18:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmatma Chaudhary and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmatma Chaudhary and 6 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

Rohit Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Behari Garg Vs State of U.P. and Another

Omkar Nath Yadav @ Onkar Nath and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sultan Alam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Chitan Singh Shakya Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another