Dismissed

Neelam Mishra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2024/2982/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet involving dowry allegations, the Allahabad High Court held that since a prima facie offence is disclosed, the inherent jurisdiction power to quash was not exercised. The prayer for quashing was dismissed allowing the proceedings to continue.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing of the charge sheet/summoning order/impugned proceedings is refused.

Neelam Mishra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29761

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2982 of 2024 Applicant :- Neelam Mishra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Salman Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Salman Abbas, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case Crime No.568 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no.2 had allegedly lodged the first information report against the applicants with false and frivolous allegations of demand of dowry, wherein general allegations have been assigned to all the accused. He further submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants 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 applicants 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.

¶9

Learned A.G.A.-I for the State submits that prima facie offence is made out against the applicants and the learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicants after due analysis of evidence available on record. Thus, the impugned order is correct and does not require any interference by this Court.

¶10

From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case and after considering the arguments made at

¶11

the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicants.

¶12

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 .

¶13

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 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.

¶14

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 applicants have ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations, this application stands dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 15.4.2024 Saurabh

¶17

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

Neelam Mishra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Mishra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. 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

Jitendra Kashi @ Jitendra Tiwari and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Kamar Rizvan and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Amrit Lal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Jawahar Lal and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Pawan Kumar Saxena and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Civil Sectt. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P. and Another

Shri Virendra Singh Bahadoriya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another