Dismissed

Vijaypal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2024A482/17645/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The court held that prima facie case exists based on medical reports and witnesses, making insignificance, and any factual or legal questions should be decided by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of proceedings was dismissed.

Vijaypal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:196476

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17645 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vijaypal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

This application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 24.01.2024, of Complaint Case No. 345 of 2024 (NC.R. No. 159 of 2021) [Sub Inspector Ravi Kumar Singh Vs. Vijaypal and others], under Sections - 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station - Panwari, District - Mahoba, pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that applicant no.1 has lodged a first information report on 04.11.2021 against opposite party no.2 and others for offences under Section - 352, 324, 323, 504, 307, 506 I.P.C. and thereafter on 06.11.2021 the opposite party no.2 has lodged a non-cognizable report as a counter blast. In said non-cognizable case, after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against applicants under Sections - 323, 504 I.P.C., which has been registered as a complaint case, as the offences were non cognizable. It was submitted that impugned proceedings are counter blast and malicious and thus, liable to be quashed.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of allegations made in the complaint and material on record a prima facie case is made out against applicants and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned summoning order.

¶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 mater, perusal of record shows that the opposite party no.2 has lodged a non cognizable report alleging that on 04.11.2024 at about 06:00 A.M., applicants-accused started abusing complainant and his father and when objected they have assaulted the complainant and his family members. That version is supported by the medical examination report of injured. It appears that in the incident both the parties have sustained injuries and opposite party no.2 has lodged cross case against applicants. In view of material on record and statements of witnesses, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against applicants. The

¶13

submissions raised by learned counsel for 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 material on record, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Hence, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 16.12.2024 S Rawat

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijaypal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaypal and 2 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

Bushra Anjum vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandrma Pratap and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Parshuram Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Kiran Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Rehana and Another vs State of Up ANOther

Phool Singh vs State of U.P. and Another