Partly allowed

Jagviri @ Ludhkan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2023A482/5062/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The quashing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed because the lower High Court wrongly conducted a mini trial. However, the applicant was directed to surrender within six weeks for bail hearing during which no arrest shall be made.

What did the court decide?

Application refused. Applicants directed to surrender within six weeks. Stay on arrest granted for said period.

Jagviri @ Ludhkan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5062 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Jagviri @ Ludhkan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar,Manish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the applicant dated 17th January, 2023 under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case arising out of Case Crime No.220 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Jewar, DistrictGautam Budh Nagar, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶8

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 at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

¶9

In the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 has held that while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court has conducted mini trial which is not permissible at that stage. The relevant portion whereof reads as follows:

¶10

"Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial,

¶11

which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered.

¶12

Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and the manner in which the High Court has allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings is unsustainable. The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C."

¶13

The prayer for quashing the aforesaid charge-sheet, summoning order as well as entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶14

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the applicants shall surrender before the concerned court below within six weeks from today and in case apply for bail, the bail application of the applicants shall be disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law and keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another , reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 .

¶15

8.For the period of six weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicants before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, they shall not be arrested in the above case.

¶16

9.With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 15.2.2023 Sushil/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jagviri @ Ludhkan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagviri @ Ludhkan 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 Dropati Devi . and Another Vs State of U.P. . and Another

Suresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Mithilesh Devi @ Lakkho Devi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ram Murti Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Singh Rana Vs State of U.P. and Another