Dismissed

Santosh Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2023A482/38800/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Allahabad refused to quash criminal proceedings against applicants. The court held that allegations do not show frivolity or lack of offence, and factual disputes must be resolved by the trial court, not the High Court.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the Special Case and summoning order is rejected.

Santosh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38800 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Santosh Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Om Vikram Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Ram Om Vikram Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceeding of Special Case No. 413 of 2022, Vineeta Vs. Santosh Kumar and others, Police Station Bharthana, District Etawah as well as summoning order dated 13.09.2022 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A. Act) Etawah in J.O. order Code - UP06338 Special Case No. 413 of 2022.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that a complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 04.09.2021 against the applicants for incident dated 14.09.2021 at about 7:00 PM, when the complainant was sitting on her shop and her husband had gone to attend some invitation in another village, Santosh came on the shop, took out the country made pistol from pocket and asked the rate of fertilizer at that time Satyaveer and Kushveer also reached there. Satyaveer having country made pistol in his hand and Kushveer having knife. Satyaveer tried to put his hand on the galla i.e money box, on being objected by the complainant Satyaveer and Santosh pointing out country made pistol took away Rs. 35,000/- from the box. On objection being raised the aforesaid persons pushed her on the ground, took away earrings and assaulted the informant by the knife, due to which she sustained injuries. On hearing alarm, other persons

¶8

reached there and the applicants using abusive language ran away. After recording the statement u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. applicants have been summoned, hence the present application has been filed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complaint has been lodged as a counter blast of the FIR which has been lodged by wife of applicant no. 2 against husband of opposite party no. 2 on false and frivolous ground, no such incident took place, therefore, the continuance of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law and the same may be quashed.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. submits that applicants have rightly been summoned by the Court below and there is no illegality of infirmity in the aforesaid order. Injuries have also been sustained by the injured. He further submits that other submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, at this stage, relates to the factual disputes and appraisal of evidence which cannot be seen here.

¶11

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

¶12

All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant relate to disputed questions of fact. 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.

¶13

In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court

¶14

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. 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.

¶15

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:-

¶16

"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."

¶17

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:-

¶18

"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

¶19

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............."

¶20

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 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 24.2.2023 Arti

¶24

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

Santosh Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar and 2 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

Smt. Nehrunisha and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zyaul Haque and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sultan and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. .and Another

Smt. Bandna Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others