Dismissed

Yogendra Pal Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2024A482/14326/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of complaint-case proceedings under Sections 452, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC alleging a counterblast complaint and unreliable medical evidence. The court held that questions of fact cannot be examined under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage, found a prima facie case disclosed, and dismissed the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Yogendra Pal Singh and Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

`Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:195466

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14326 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Yogendra Pal Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhilesh Srivastava,G.A.,Saksham Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash of entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 22.02.2024, of Criminal Case No. 358 of 2023 (Himanshu Vs. Yogendra Pal Singh and others), under Sections 452, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Gabhana, District- Aligarh, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Aligarh.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that impugned complaint has been filed making false and baseless allegations. Regarding an incident dated 03.07.2023, the mother of applicant nos.1 & 2 has lodged a noncognizable report against father of opposite party no.2 and others and thereafter impugned complaint has been lodged on 02.09.2023, making false allegations and as a counterblast to the said case. It was submitted that the allegations of complainant that he has sustained injuries is wholly false. No x-ray report of injured was produced before the court below regarding alleged fracture. In fact, the complainant has remained under treatment for neuro related illness. In the alleged supplementary medical examination report, issued by Thakur Ram Chandra Singh Memorial Hospital, it has been mentioned that this report is not valid for legal purposes. There is long delay in medical examination of the opposite party no.2/complainant. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned proceedings are counterblast and no case is made out against the applicants.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that in complaint as well as in his statement, the complainant has made clear allegations that on 27.06.2023 at about 08:30 AM, applicants have trespassed into his house and they have assaulted him with lathi and that father and mother of complainant were also assaulted. The complainant has sustained fracture in his right arm. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that complainant has sustained serious injuries at his arm and he was provided neuro related treatment and thereafter it was found that the complainant has suffered fracture in his arm. At this stage, there are no reasons to disbelieve the medical examination report.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶11

The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is wellsettled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal , Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615 . It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be

¶12

held.

¶13

In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that the complainant has made allegations that on 27.06.2023 at about 08:30 AM, applicants have trespassed into his house and they have assaulted him with lathi and resultantly he has sustained injuries including fracture in his right arm. The version of complainant is supported by medical examination report. His version is further supported by witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Whether the alleged medical examination report is reliable or not, can not be considered at this stage. It is well-settled that questions of fact can not be examined under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and a mini-trial can not be held at this stage. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned/adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. In view of allegations made in the impugned complaint and material on record, it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶14

Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 13.12.2024 SP/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yogendra Pal Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Yogendra Pal Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

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

Shahnaj Bano vs State of Up and Another

Bachchu Lal Sahu and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Narendra @ Nanda and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Irshad vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raju Kushwah vs State of U.P. and 4 Others