Dismissed

Abdul Rauf v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2024/853/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard an application seeking quashing of a summons under Section 482 Cr.P.C. involving allegations of criminal trespass and mischief in a tenancy dispute. The court dismissed the application, noting the lack of merit and avoiding a mini-trial. The appellant had failed to acquaint himself with relevant case law.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of the summoning order was dismissed as it lacked merit.

Abdul Rauf Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11739

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 853 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Abdul Rauf Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arshad Jameel,Mohammad Naseem,Mohd. Salman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Arshad Hafeez, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Ms Charu Singh, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶7

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has sought quashing of the summoning order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the learned Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Lucknow in Complaint Case No.4132 of 2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Sadatganj, Lucknow. 3. The opposite party No.2 had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 15.10.2019 against the applicant, one Sarfaraz and two unnamed persons, stating that the complainant had taken the basement of the applicant's premises on rent in the year 2016. Some dispute occurred and the applicant parked his SUV in front of the door of the shop and blocked its passage. He removed the signboard put on the shop, removed goods of the shop and put the name of his shop there. When the complainant was removing some furniture of the shop at about 6 pm on 30.09.2019, the applicant and other accused persons abused and beaten him up and put their lock on the shop. On 02.10.2019 the accused persons threw away the goods from the shop; some of the goods were stolen and some got damaged.

¶8

4. The complainant had filed his affidavit in support of the complaint.

¶9

5. On 04.12.2019, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.25, Lucknow passed an order for registering the application

¶10

under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint. Thereafter, the trial court has passed the impugned order dated 06.05.2022 summoning the applicant and his son Sarfaraz for trial under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC. Applicant's son, Sarfaraz has not joined him in filing the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

6. The application has been filed on the ground that the complaint has been filed on false averments, as there is a dispute between the parties regarding tenancy and the opposite party No.2 had filed Regular Suit No.1706 of 2019 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, North, Lucknow.

¶12

7. The case was adjourned on 06.02.2024 after recording that the learned counsel was not prepared to advance submissions and he had not even read the statutory provisions contained in Section 482 Cr.P.C. or any case law regarding scope of enquiry while deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶13

8. Today again, the learned counsel for the applicant states that he is not aware of any case law regarding scope of enquiry under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶14

9 . The scope of interference by the High Courts in proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been succinctly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, in the following words: -

¶15

" 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of

¶16

illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

¶17

"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶18

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶19

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶20

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶21

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶22

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶23

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

¶24

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh , 2023 SCC Online SC 379 has held that while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. It does not require the prosecution/investigating agency to prove the allegations. While exercising the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not".

¶25

11. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the

¶26

allegations leveled in the complaint are false and cannot be decided by this Court while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the same can only be decided by the trial court after the parties have led evidence in support of their respective cases.

¶27

12. The application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed .

¶28

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶29

Order Date :- 8.2.2024 prateek

¶30

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abdul Rauf v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rauf v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Raj Kumar Gautam Vs Smt. Kanti Devi

Km.Neha Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Sectt. Lko and Another

Smt. Farha Deeba @ Babli and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Rohit Jain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Juvenile a Thru. His Mother Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Mehtab Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another