Dismissed

Sarfuddin and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2024A482/34963/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court held that allegations disclose a prima facie case and the validity of a Section 156(3) FIR stemming from a property dispute is a question of fact for trial, not tenable under inherent powers.

What did the court decide?

Application praying for quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as the allegations disclose a prima facie case.

Sarfuddin and Another vs State of Up and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34963 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Sarfuddin And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Khalid Ansari,Qaisar Kamal Ansari

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Qaisar Kamal Ansari, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Jyoti Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the Stateopposite party.

¶7

The applicants, by means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 4528 of 2023 (State vs. Sarfuddin and others), Charge-sheet dated 22.11.2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 183 of 2022, under Section 427, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bhempura, District Ballia as well as cognizance/Summoning order dated 16.05.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate First, Ballia.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of concocted story of theft of soil by illegal digging the land of Arazi No. 227 situated at Mauja Chandaur Sikraul, Tehsil Belthara Road, District Ballia, which actually not relates to the informant, as she had already sold the land to one Mohd. Zafar by executing the sale deed on 06.10.2022. He further submitted that that the impugned F.I.R. is outcome of an application filed by the informant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are innocent and have never committed any offence as alleged against them. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that there was dispute of property between the applicants and first informant who is aunt of the applicant, and just to put undue pressure upon them, the present criminal proceedings have been initiated against the applicants to settled the property dispute. Further submission is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider as no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the

¶10

application and contended that as per F.I.R. the informant is a widow lady, made several applications with regard to illegal digging of soil on 15.06.2022 from her land to the police authority, when no heed was made on her complaint, she moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the A.C.J.M., Ballia. It is further contended that after due investigation and recording of the Statement, the instant F.I.R. was lodged on 22.09.2022. Police after investigation filed charge-sheet in the matter. It is further submitted that the trial court has rightly took cognizance and issued summons against the applicants on 16.05.2023 and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned summoning order as well as the ongoing proceedings.

¶11

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court.

¶12

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines under which circumstances the Court should, in its inherent power, entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The guidelines are as follows:-

¶13

"(i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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.

¶14

(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶15

(iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶16

(iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶17

(v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach

¶18

a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶19

(vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶20

(vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

¶21

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 , and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶22

The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgements mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicants. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.

¶23

Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶24

Order Date :- 18.10.2024 Bhanu

¶25

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarfuddin and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarfuddin and Another v. State of Up 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

Amit Nigam vs U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

Sandhya and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Bhairao Bux and Another vs Ram Anjor Mishra

Union of India Thru. Gen. Manager Northern Railway New Delhi vs Ram Janki and 4 Others

Shravan Kumar and 3 Others vs Ram Narayan

Daan Bahadur Singh vs Sobha Devi