Dismissed

Chandra Prakash and 4 Others v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2023A482/13490/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application to quash criminal proceedings, the High Court found that the complaints, supported by injury reports, disclosed an offence. The court held the inherent power is not exercised for mere asking and rejected the prayer, ruling against the applicants.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the complaint case and summoning order is refused and the application is rejected.

Chandra Prakash and 4 Others Vs State of U.P and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13490 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Chandra Prakash And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjive Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saurabh Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

The case is taken up in the revised call.

¶6

No appears on behalf of applicants even in the revised calling of the list whereas Sri Saurabh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant, Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1358 of 2020 as well as summoning order dated 16.12.2021 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 7, Judicial Magistrate, Budaun, under sections 323, 324 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Budaun.

¶8

Learned counsel for the informant states that on the basis of statements under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as well as injury report, it is clear that the applicants have participated in the incident. The applicant have been summoned for the offence under relevant sections which is made out, the said fact has also been mentioned in para 8 of the counter affidavit. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it can not be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicant.

¶9

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

¶10

The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details, which have been touched upon by learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.

¶11

In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint

¶12

except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The Court can not look into the fact as to whether the allegations in the complaint are true or untrue and the same has to be decided by the trial court, thus no interference is required in such cases as the present one. Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for the asking.

¶13

The aforesaid has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335 . The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

¶14

"103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."

¶15

The following observations has also been made by the Apex Court in the latest judgment of Ramveer Upadhyay & another vs. State of U.P. & another reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 396 . Paragraph no.39 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

¶16

"39. In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. As observed above, the possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Attrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence............."

¶17

In fact while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or while wielding the powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India the quashing of the complaint can be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court

¶18

decisions in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of law in this regard clear recognizing certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present matter does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court, which might justify interference by this Court in order to quash the proceedings. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of aforesaid complaint case is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.

¶20

The present application lacks merit and is, accordingly, rejected .

¶21

Order Date :- 16.2.2023 Arti

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandra Prakash and 4 Others v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Prakash and 4 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

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aslam and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahnavaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raju Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheru and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajiv Bhalla Vs State of U.P. and Another