The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, it held that a mini-trial is impermissible at this stage and disputed facts preclude quashing.
Petition for quashing of complaints under Section 482 CrPC dismissed.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2358/2022
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Order
08/08/2023
1- ;kph&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ;g ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr ifjoknh&izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls iqfyl Fkkuk Mhx ftyk Hkjriqj esa iathc) djok;h x;h izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 389@21 vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 323] 341] 354ch] 504] 506 Hkk-na-la- dks fujLr fd;s tkus gsrq izLrqr dh x;h gSA 2- fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph dk fuosnu gS fd okLro esa orZEkku izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dh ifjoknh;k ds ifr lrohj }kjk
(2 of 5) [CRLMP-2358/2022]
fnukad 23-04-21 dks eafnj ds iqtkjh catjaxnkl o orZeku vfHk;qDr dkS'ky fd'kksj ds lkFk /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls ekjihV dh FkhA ifjlj ds f[kMdh njokts rksMus dk iz;kl fd;k] lhlhVhoh dSejs Hkh rksM fn;s ftldh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 252@21 ntZ djok;h x;h Fkh mlls cpus ds fy, o dkm.Vj CykLV ds :i esa lrohj us viuh iRuh vFkkZr orZeku ifjokfn;k dks vkxs j[krs gq, NsMNkM o v'yhy gjdr vkfn djus vkfn ds laca/k esa ;g feF;k izdj.k ntZ djok;k x;k gSA orZeku izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ rhu ekg ds foyEc ls gS] laiw.kZ dfFkr ?kVu vLokHkkfod gS vkSj var esa mijksDr vk/kkjksa ij ;g izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fujLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
3- fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk ;kfpdk dk fojks/k djrs gq, tkfgj fd;k fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij laKs; vijk/k ds rRo izdV gks jgs gSa] mijksDr vkjksiksa vFkok bl ;kfpdk ds ek/;e ls vfHk;qDr }kjk fy, x;s cpko ds laca/k esa vHkh vafre fu"d"kZ ugha fn;k tk ldrk] ;g vuqla/[email protected] dk fo"k; gS] vUr esa ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
4- nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksaZ ds lanHkZ esa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA
5- orZeku izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 389@21 esa ifjoknh;k }kjk vfHk;qDr ds fo:) fnukad 23-04-21 dks lqcg 9-00 cts vfHk;qDr@izkFkhZ }kjk ihNs ls ckFk Hkjdj cqjk dke djus dh uh;r ls uhps iVddj /kksrh vkfn [khapdj fuoZL= djus dk vkjksi yxk;k gS rFkk ;g Hkh vkjksi yxk;k gS fd
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-2358/2022]
mlds ifr }kjk mykguk nsus ij 'kke ds le; vfHk;qDr i{k }kjk ekjihV o xkyh xykst Hkh dh x;hA
6- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 State of Uttar Pradesh and Anrs. Vs. Akhil Sharda and Ors with Sanjeet Jaiswal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. ds iSjk la[;k&07 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh x;h gS%&
"7. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered."
7- blh izdkj ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk (2002) 1 SCC 555 Kamaladevi Agarwal V. State of W.B. & Ors. ds iSjk la[;k&07 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh x;h gS%&
"7. This Court has consistently held that the revisional or inherent powers of quashing the proceedings at the initial stage should be exercised sparingly and only where the
(4 of 5) [CRLMP-2358/2022]
allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, even if taken it at the face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie discolse the commission of an offence. Disputed and controversial facts cannot be made the basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction."
8- mijksDr U;kf;d n"Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj Li"V gS fd vuqla/kku dh LVst ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr djkus gsrq vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs le; izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr vkjksi rFkk vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls fy, x;s cpko o vU; lkexzh dh lR;rk] fo'oluh;rk vkfn ds laca/k esa laf{kIr tkap vFkok laf{kIr fopkj.k vuqKs; ugha gSA orZeku ekeys esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij laKs; vijk/k ds rRo izdV gks jgs gksa] ;g izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ U;k;ky;hu izfdz;k dk nq:i;ksx djus gsrq ntZ djk;h x;h gks] ,slk Li"V ekeyk ugha gS rFkk yxk;s x;s vkjksi vius vki esa vlaHkkO; gks] ,slh fLFkfr Hkh ugha gSA vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls tks cpko fy;s x;s gSa] os vuqla/kku dk fo"k; gks ldrs gSa rFkk ;fn vkjksi i= izLrqr gksrk gS rks cpko lk{; ds le; lqlaxr gks ldrs gSaA vfHk;qDr }kjk fy, x;s cpko ek= vk/kkj ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr djus gsrq vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx la;r rjhds ls o iw.kZ lko/kkuh ds lkFk visf{kr gSA lkekU; :i ls tc rd lqn< vk/kkj ugha gksa] vuqla/kku izfdz;k dks jksdk tkuk vFkok ckf/kr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA
(5 of 5) [CRLMP-2358/2022]
9- mijksDr foospkukuqlkj izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fujLr djus gsrq /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr {ks=kf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx gLrxr ekeys esa fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA
10ifj.kker% ;g ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J
Murari/670
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a mini-trial can be conducted by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to decide quashing of criminal proceedings.
Whether disputed and controversial facts can form the basis for quashing criminal proceedings under the inherent powers of the Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Uttar Pradesh and Anrs. Vs. Akhil Sharda and OrsRelied on¶22
2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 State of Uttar Pradesh and Anrs. Vs. Akhil Sharda and Ors · Who else cites this
Sanjeet Jaiswal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and OrsRelied on¶22
Sanjeet Jaiswal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors
Kamaladevi Agarwal V. State of W.B. & Ors.Relied on¶24
(2002) 1 SCC 555 Kamaladevi Agarwal V. State of W.B. & Ors. · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Koushal Kishor Chela
Bajrang Das Chela
State of Rajasthan
Uma Shanker Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
