Dismissed

Ramesh Chand Alias Pawan Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2024/3168/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings for impeding communication with a minor child, the court held that a prima facie offence is disclosed. Ruling that quashing is an exception, the High Court dismissed the application, allowing the trial to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of charge sheet/summoning order refused; application dismissed.

Ramesh Chand Alias Pawan Kumar and Another Vs State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31050

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3168 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ramesh Chand Alias Pawan Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Prakash Singh,Javed Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Javed Khan, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has filed a supplementary affidavit today in the Court, which is taken on record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.98 of 2020, Cse Crime No.186 of 2018, under Sections 504, 363, 366, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Ahirauli, District Ambedkar Nagar as well as charge sheet no.177/2019 dated 18.08.2019 and summoning order dated 24.02.2020.

¶9

The prosecution case in brief is that complainant's daughter aged about 16 years went to school on the date of incident but she did not return back. It has been alleged that the instant applicant used to talk with her daughter and the allegation is that applicant Pawan Kumar and his friends have enticed his daughter.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant nos.1 & 2 are husband and wife respectively and are living peacefully with their two children. The father of applicant no.2 i.e. opposite party no.2 has lodged the instant case against the applicants. 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.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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 applicants.

¶15

This Court is also of the view that at the time of commission of offence the victim was minor aged about 16 years and the judgment cited by learned counsel for the applicant are totally distinguishable from the case of instant applicatns.

¶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 , (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283 and (v) Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918.

¶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

¶18

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.

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

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, this application stands dismissed.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.4.2024 Saurabh

¶22

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

Ramesh Chand Alias Pawan Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chand Alias Pawan Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Girish Chandra Arya and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Police Commissioner Lucknow and Anr.

Rajan Saini Vs State of U.P. Thru. Civil Sectt. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Mohd. Azam and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Priyanka Achari vs Ram Prakash Achari

Annpurna Devi @ Chhotka vs Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda and Ors.

Dr. Irshad Ali and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another