Dismissed

Anshul Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2024/1587/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings for cheating and defamation. The court held that prima facie offences were disclosed and quashing is an exception, not a rule.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of FIR, charge sheet, and summoning order dismissed. Interim protection vacated.

Anshul Jaiswal Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30525

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1587 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anshul Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Om Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Sri Ravindra Kumar Yadav, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Hari Om Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ravindra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 14423 of 2023; State Vs. Anshul Jaiswal, arising out of FIR No. 0052 of 2023, under Sections 420, 500 IPC, Police Station Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar as well as cognizance order dated 13.10.2023, summoning order dated 15.12.2023 and chargesheet no. A155 of 2023 dated 22.07.2023, under Sections 420, 500 IPC.

¶9

In compliance of the order dated 20.02.2024, the applicant, Anshul Jaiswal and the opposite party no.2, Sri Dileep Verma are present before this Court in person and they have been identified by their respective counsel. They have been called for settlement through compromise, however, the parties are not ready to settle the dispute amicably.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the investigating officer, after completion of investigation, has submitted the charge sheet in a cursory manner before the learned Magistrate and the concerned Magistrate has mechanically and in an arbitrary manner has summoned the

¶12

applicant without considering the material evidence on record and without application of judicial mind, which is totally illegal. Thus, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶13

Learned A.G.A.-I for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submit that prima facie offence is made out against the applicant and the learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicant after due analysis of evidence available on record. Thus, the impugned order is correct and does not require any interference by this Court.

¶14

Learned A.G.A.-I for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further submit that even the applicant has not annexed the original impugned order, he has just annexed the order which has been passed in between.

¶15

From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicant.

¶16

At the stage of issuing process the trial court is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:- (i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283 .

¶17

From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise

¶18

secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.

¶19

The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing of charge sheet/summoning order/impugned proceedings is refused. There is no merit in this case. The applicant has ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.

¶20

This Court further finds that the parties present before this Court are not ready to settle the dispute amicably and even the learned counsel for the applicant has not annexed the original cognizance order rather he has annexed an order which has been passed in between the proceedings.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations, this application stands dismissed.

¶22

Interim protection granted vide order dated 20.02.2024 stands vacated.

¶23

Order Date :- 18.4.2024 Saurabh

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anshul Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshul Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Mohsin Khan Alias Mosin and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Civil Sectt. Home Deptt. Lucknow, U.P. and Another

Ramjeet Rawat @ Ramjeet and 5 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Guru Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Harinam @ Harinam Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Ajay Kumar Baghel and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another