Single judge of Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed 12 years after filing, holding there was an undue delay and no prima facie case for quashing criminal proceedings at an advanced stage of trial.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings was dismissed.
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.
1
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:220591
Reserved
Court No. - 78
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28102 of 2023 Applicant :- Ajai Rai And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Nath Singh,Ashok Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
2
gang and the first information report was lodged by a private person and thus, in the said matter, police cannot submit the charge-sheet under Section 3(1) of the Act. For invoking the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act, the informant has to be a police official. Referring to these facts, it was submitted that the trial of applicants Section 3(1) of the Act is against the provisions of law and thus, the impugned proceedings are abuse of the process of court and thus, liable to be quashed.
3
undue delay in filing of this application and at this stage of trial, it is wholly undesirable to quash the proceedings.
4
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. It is well settled that High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding unless the allegations contained, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. The inherent powers for the purpose of quashing proceedings have to be exercised very sparingly. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. In the instant matter, there is no such plea that no prima facie case is made out. At this stage it would be pertinent to refer that probabilities of the prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise, the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance. The Supreme Court in the case of M.N. Ojha v.
Alok Kumar Srivastav reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682 has held that interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can only be where a clear case for such interference is made out.
Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be quashed due to procedural irregularities regarding the invocation of the Gangster Act.
Whether Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters Act can be invoked in cases lodged by private persons.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sumit v. State of U.P. & AnotherReferred¶13
Sumit v. State of U.P. & Another [Application u/s 482 No. 491 of 2020]
State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan LalRelied on¶20
AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal · Who else cites this
M.N. Ojha v. Alok Kumar SrivastavRelied on¶22
M.N. Ojha v. Alok Kumar Srivastav reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Ajai Rai And 4 Others
State of U.P. and Another
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
