Dismissed

Charan Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2024A482/23856/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by an applicant challenging the dismissal of his complaint by the Sessions Court. The court held that the allegations were improbable and the lower courts properly considered the facts, finding no abuse of process or miscarriage of justice warranting interference.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed with no interference in the impugned order dated 08.05.2024.

Charan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:199209

¶3

Court No. - 75

¶4

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23856 of 2024 Applicant :- Charan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwani Kumar Soni,Shubham Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today, is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 08.05.2024, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Additional Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Court No. 3, Firozabad, in criminal revision no. 101 of 2022, arising out of complaint case no. 264 of 2021, whereby the revision filed against the order dated 17.06.2022 has been dismissed.

¶9

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against opposite party nos. 2 and 3 making allegations that they have forcibly taken away a cheque from the applicant and the said application was registered as a complaint case. The complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and after inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the said complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 17.06.2022. Against the order dated 17.06.2022, the applicant has preferred a criminal revision, which has been dismissed by the Session court vide impugned order dated 08.05.2024. It was submitted that a prima facie case is made out but the learned Revisional court has not considered the facts and the law and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The allegation that the private opposite parties have forcibly taken away the cheque is wholly improbable. It was further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has filed a

¶11

¶12

case under Section 138 N.I. Act against the applicant and in that matter applicant has been summoned and that the impugned complaint was filed as a counterblast to that case.

¶13

I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶14

Before proceeding further, it would be expedient to go through the provisions as enunciated under Sections 203 and 204 Cr.P.C., which reads as under :-

¶15

Section 203 Cr.P.C.

¶16

"Dismissal of complaint- If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing,"

¶17

Section 204 Cr.P.C.

¶18

"204.Issue of process. (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be-

¶19

(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or

¶20

(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction."

¶21

Thus, it is clear that as per the procedure prescribed for proceedings with regard to the complaint case after recording the statements of the complainant and witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202 Cr.P.C., if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding exist and he may dismiss the complaint. It is well settled that if a bare perusal of a complaint or the evidence led in support of it shows that essential ingredients of the offence alleged are absent or that the dispute is only a civil nature or that there are such patent absurdities in evidence produced that it would be a waste of time to proceed further the complaint could be properly dismissed under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code.

¶22

¶23

What the Magistrate had to determine at the stage of issue of process was not the correctness of the probability or improbability of individual items of evidence on disputable grounds, but the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case on the assumption that what was stated could be true unless the prosecution allegations were so fantastic that they could not reasonably be held to be true.

¶24

In S.N. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2001 SC 12960 while examining the scope of section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 15,16 and 17 has held as under :

¶25

"15. In case of a complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C. or IPC a Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence made out and then has to examine the complainant and the witnesses, if any, to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused to issue process so that the issue of process is prevented on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass. Such examination is provided in order to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding. The words 'sufficient ground' used under Section 202 have to be construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction.

¶26

This Court in Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. The State of West Bengal and others, (1993)(3)SCC 753), in para 22, referring to scheme of Sections 200-203 of Cr.P.C. has explained that "The section does not say that a regular trial of adjudging truth or otherwise of the person complained against should take place at that stage, for, such a person can be called upon to answer the accusation made against him only when a process has been issued and he is on trial. Section 203 consists of two parts. The first part lays down the materials which the Magistrate must consider, and the second part says that if after considering those materials there is in his judgment not sufficient ground for proceeding, he may dismiss the complaint. In Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose (1964 (1)SCR 639) where dismissal of a complaint by the Magistrate at the stage of Section 2092 inquiry was set aside, this Court laid down that the test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction, and observed (p.653) that where there was prima facie evidence, even though the person charged of an offence in the complaint might have a defence, the matter had to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue a process could not be refused. Unless, therefore, the Magistrate finds that the evidence led before him is self-contradictory, or intrinsically

¶27

¶28

untrustworthy, process cannot be refused if that evidence makes out a prima facie case."

¶29

In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Kongalgi (1976(3) SCC 736) this Court dealing with the scope of inquiry under Section 202 has stated that it is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint (a) on the materials placed by the complainant before the Court (b) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; (C) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. It is also indicated by way of illustration in which cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process can be quashed on such case being "where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused."

¶30

Considering above-stated position of law, in the instant case it may be seen that the applicant has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, making allegations that they have forcibly taken away a cheque from the applicant and misused the same. The said application was registered as a complaint. The complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C.. The said complaint was dismissed by the learned Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 17.06.2022. Against the order dated 17.06.2022, the applicant has preferred criminal revision, which has been dismissed by the Session court vide impugned order dated 08.05.2024. Perusal of record shows that learned Magistrate has considered entire facts and the complaint was dismissed by a reasoned order. The revisional court has also considered facts of the matter and dismissed the revision by impugned order dated 08.05.2024. The allegations of applicant appear ex-facie improbable. No patent illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned order. There is nothing to indicate that there has been any abuse of the process of court or miscarriage of justice so as to require any interference by this Court in exercise of power conferred under 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction.

¶31

¶32

The instant application lacks merit and accordingly it is dismissed . Order Date :- 19.12.2024 Anand

¶33

Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Charan Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charan Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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