Dismissed

Raja Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jun 2022A482/9621/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court exercised inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to consider the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under IPC and SC/ST Act. Finding that the issue involves appreciation of evidence and credibility of versions which falls within the domain of the trial court, the application was refused.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of charge sheet, cognizance order and proceedings refused; bail application allowed conditionally.

Raja Yadav Vs State of U.P. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9621 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Raja Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jaysingh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

By means of this application under section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the charge sheet dated 03.12.2021, cognizance order dated 17.12.2021 as well as entire proceedings of S.S.T. No. 374 of 2021 (State vs. Ashok Raja Singh), pending in the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Lalitpur, arising out of case crime no. 910 of 2021, under Section 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(da)(dha) SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that first information report of this case has been lodged making false and baseless allegations and that charge-sheet has been submitted in a routine manner without proper investigation. The injured has not sustained any injury only complaint of pain was shown. It was also pointed out that in the injury report of injured Jeevan, it has been mentioned that there was intake of heavy liquor and smell of liquor was coming out from his mouth and breath which clearly shows that in the alleged incident he was under influence of liquor. Learned counsel has referred the first information report and statements of witnesses and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant.

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

¶12

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, charge sheet or cognizance order is made out. Hence, the prayer as made above is hereby refused.

¶14

However, keeping in view the facts of the matter, in case the applicant appears and before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with settled law. For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant appears and applies for bail before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 7.6.2022 A. Tripathi

¶17

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.06.08 12:40:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raja Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Yadav 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

Sultan Alam Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

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

Satyabhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajan Maurya and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another