Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 377 IPC for alleged domestic cruelty. The single-judge High Court dismissed the application holding that alleged F.I.R. prima facie disclosed offences and the petitioners had not established absence of merits.
Petition for quashing of criminal eviction complaint 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. 3572/2023
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Gulista, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.G. Chopra, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Order
02/08/2023
;kph&vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls ;g ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr ifjoknh&izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls iqfyl Fkkuk&lhdjh ftyk&Hkjriqj esa iathc) djok;h x;h izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k&147@2023 vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 498,] 406] 377 Hkk-na-la- dks fujLr fd;s tkus gsrq izLrqr dh x;h gSA
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-3572/2023]
fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph dk fuosnu gS fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa yxk;s x;s vkjksi iw.kZr% feF;k] dkYifud rFkk vLokHkkfod gSa] izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ Hkh foyEc ls gS] pksVksa ds ckcr~ dksbZ Li"V o fof'k"V fooj.k vafdr ugha gS] bl izdkj U;kf;d izfdz;k dk nq:i;ksx gksuk crkrs gq, mijksDr vk/kkjksa ij ;g izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fujLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
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
nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksaZ ds lanHkZ esa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA
izR;FkhZ dze&2@ifjokfn;k }kjk mijksDr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds ek/;e ls ;g vkjksi yxk;k gS fd mldk fudkg vkt ls lkr o"kZ lkfgn ds lkFk gqvk Fkk] lkfgn us 'kknh ds rqjUr i'pkr ls mls cnlwjr] dywVh vkfn crkrs gq, vekuoh; O;ogkj fd;k rFkk vizkd`frd eSFkqu fd;kA ifjokfn;k ds lkl&llqj rFkk nsoj bl ?kVuk ds fy, mdlkrs Fks] fnukad 13-04-2023 dks mijksDr pkjksa vfHk;qDrx.k us mlds lkFk ekjihV dh vkSj blls rax gksdj mlus vkRegR;k dk iz;kl Hkh fd;k] bl izdkj yxkrkj dwzjrk o izrkMuk dk O;ogkj vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk fd;s tkus dk vkjksi gSA
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-3572/2023]
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."
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 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."
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;
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-3572/2023]
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
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
ifj.kker% ;g ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J
Mittal /490
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings at merits stage where allegations invite trial.
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. allows dismissal of F.I.R. without appreciating disputed facts.
Whether mineral offences invite dismissal of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Uttar Pradesh and Anrs. Vs. Akhil Sharda and OrsReferred¶23
2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 State of Uttar Pradesh and Anrs. Vs. Akhil Sharda and Ors · Who else cites this
Kamaladevi Agarwal V. State of W.B. & Ors.Referred¶25
(2002) 1 SCC 555 Kamaladevi Agarwal V. State of W.B. & Ors. · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sahid S/o Nasru
Hasina W/o Nasru
Nasru S/o Suvan Khan
Insar S/o Nasru
State Of Rajasthan
Aarifa W/o Sahid
UMA SHANKER VYAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
