Dismissed

Om Prakash and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2023A482/6354/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court bench dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a summoning order. The court held that the allegations of beating and injury disclosed an offence and relied on Supreme Court precedents to refuse interference in a prima facie case.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of entire proceedings of the complaint case is refused and the application is rejected.

Om Prakash and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6354 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Om Prakash And 9 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Vikas 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 impugned summoning order dated 05.11.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 25, Basti arising out of Complaint Case No. 30568 of 2021 (Kamlesh Kumar Vs. Om Prakash and others), under sections 323, 452, 379 IPC, Police Station Kaptanganj, District Basti pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 25, Basti.

¶7

Brief facts of the case is that a complaint has been lodged by opposite party no. 2 against as many as 11 persons including the applicants out of which 10 have approached this Court. The complaint has been lodged with the allegation that the applicants have committed incident on several dates however on one of the date the applicants entered into the house of opposite party no. 2 and have beaten the family members of opposite party no. 2 in which they have sustained injuries. After recording the statement of the complainant and the alleged witnesses u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively, applicants have been summoned, hence the present application has been filed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no. 2 is a man of criminal nature and earlier a case was lodged from the side of applicants against opposite party no. 2 and the present case has been lodged as a counter blast. The allegations have been made against all the accused persons are general in nature. He further submits that no such incident took place, therefore, the continuance of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law and the same may be quashed.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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. 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

¶15

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."

¶16

The following observations has also been made by the Apex Court in the latest judgment of Ramveer Upadhyay & another vs. State of

¶17

U.P. & another reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC)

¶18

Paragraph no.39 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

¶19

"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..........…"

¶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

¶21

categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 7.4.2023 Arti

¶25

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

Om Prakash and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash and 9 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

Jaheer and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Shiv Gopal Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vineet Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranjana Singh Vs State of U.P. 4 Others

Puttan Vs State of U.P.

Harish Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another