Dismissed

Ramdas Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2024A482/16210/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings. It held that factual disputes regarding alleged assault and injury require trial court adjudication, refusing quashing but directing efficient disposal of any discharge application filed within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the complaint and summoning order refused; discharge application to be disposed within three weeks.

Ramdas Yadav and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176092

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16210 of 2024 Applicant :- Ramdas Yadav And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Chauhan,Shiva Kant Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 22.11.2023, of Complaint Case No. 3003 of 2022 (Hardev Vs. Rajdev and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Mehnagar, District Azamgarh, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.24, Azamgarh.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. There is property dispute between the parties and a civil case is pending. The impugned complaint has been filed as a counterblast to the said proceedings to exert undue pressure upon the applicants. The injured persons have been medically examined after two days of the incident and that duration of the injury has not been explained properly. The complainant has not sustained any injury. Learned counsel has referred complaint and statements of witnesses and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of the allegations made in the complaint and in the

¶9

statement of complainant, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., as well as in the statements of witnesses, recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶11

The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled 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 judgment 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.

¶12

In the instant matter perusal of record shows that the complainant has alleged that on account of property dispute, the applicants have assaulted the complainant and his family members with lathi and resultantly, the daughter of complainant has sustained injury at her head and wife of complainant also sustained injury. This version is supported by medical evidence. The version of complainant is further supported by witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more

¶13

appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶14

After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly the prayer for quashing the impugned complaint and summoning order is hereby refused.

¶15

However, it is directed that in case applicants move an application for discharge within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. For a period of three weeks from today and in case, such an application is moved within the aforesaid period, till the disposal of such application, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants, provided applicants co-operate in early disposal of the discharge application.

¶16

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of in above terms.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.11.2024 RKM

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramdas Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdas Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Tej Pal Singh and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Kumar and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt Namita Alias Neetu Chhabra vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Kumar Banoriya and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt Gayatri and Another vs State of Up and Another

Dhirendra Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. and Another