Application to quash criminal proceedings and summoning order arising from a complaint against applicants for offences under sections 392 and 354 IPC. The High Court rejected the petition.
Application to quash proceedings and summoning order was not allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:144232
Court No. - 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28657 of 2024
Applicant :- Munne Lal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- A.K. Singh Solanki,Pashali Slolanki Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused teh record.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1306 of 2024 (Dharamwati vs. Munne Lal & others) pending before Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Budaun/Addl. Session Judge, Court No.5, Budaun u/s 392, 354 I.P.C., Police Station Binawar, District Budaun as well as summoning order dated 05.06.2024 passed in the aforesaid case.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in this case the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated with general allegations regarding molestation of the complainant and commission of marpit with lathi and danda as well as for snatching away Rs.3000/- alongwith ear rings. Further submitted that the parties went to the police station where matter was settled by the police since it was trivial in nature and no any such incident took place that was the reason no F.I.R. was lodged at the police station. It is also submitted that the witnesses recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. are related to the complainant so their testimony cannot be said to be reliable. The learned court concerned did not consider all these facts while summoning the applicants for the offence u/s 392 & 354 I.P.C. which cannot be said to be lawful, therefore, request to quash the entire proceedings of the case including summoning order.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the incident as aforesaid took place with the complainant and promptly she went to the police station but her F.I.R. was not lodged that was the reason she filed the present complaint before the learned court. The statements of he complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C.
were recorded before the learned trial court. The witnesses examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. are said to be the eye-witnesses of the incident who have also supported the version as made in the complaint. At this stage the statements of the complainant and other witnesses cannot be said to be false since they are related to the facts which can only be decided during the course of trial before the learned court. Further contended that applicants may have an option to move for discharge before the learned court at an appropriate stage.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, the contents of complaint, the statements of complainant & other witnesses u/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., it appears that on the basis of material on record learned court concerned took cognizance of the offences by applying its judicial mind and summoned the applicants. There is no illegality and impropriety in the impugned order. The reliability of statements of witnesses can only be tested during trial but not at this stage before this Court. Further applicants may have an option to move for discharge before the learned court concerned with their submissions and the same shall be decided by it, in accordance with law. Hence, there appears no any other ground for granting indulgence in favour of the applicants.
Accordingly, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 5.9.2024 Ashok Gupta
Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned summoning order under s. 392 and 354 IPC suffers from any illegality or impropriety warranting quashal under s. 482 Cr.P.C.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Munne Lal And 2 Others
State of U.P. and Another
Subhash Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
