Back
2014 Supreme(All) 2381
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J.
Akbal And 6 Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. And Another - Respondent
Application U/S 482 No. - 31389 of 2014
Decided On : 19-08-2014
For the Petitioner: M.D. Mishra.
For the Respondents:Govt. Advocate.
The court's discretion in interference with proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is guided by the principle that at the initial stage, when the disputed question of facts requires appreciation of evidence, it is not a fit case for interference. The court also emphasized the responsibility of the concerned court to consider the material carefully to ensure that no innocent person is held guilty.
Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Criminal Complaint and Summoning Order - Court's Discretion in Interference with Proceedings
Fact of the Case:
The applicants filed a Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceeding of a criminal complaint case and the summoning order passed by the CJM, Siddharth Nagar, alleging that the injuries were falsely reported and the entire proceeding should be quashed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that at the initial stage, the disputed question of facts required appreciation of evidence and was not a fit case for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C. The court emphasized the responsibility of the concerned court to consider the material carefully to ensure that no innocent person is held guilty. However, the court directed that if the applicants appear before the courts below within 30 days and apply for bail, the bail application should be considered and disposed of expeditiously.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should exercise its discretion to interfere with the proceeding of the criminal complaint case and the summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the principle that at the initial stage, when the disputed question of facts requires appreciation of evidence, it is not a fit case for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C. The court also emphasized the responsibility of the concerned court to consider the material carefully to ensure that no innocent person is held guilty.
Final Decision: The court finally disposed of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., directing the applicants to appear before the courts below within 30 days and apply for bail, with the expectation that the bail application would be considered and disposed of expeditiously.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
3. This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the proceeding of criminal complaint case no.1215 of 2003 as well as summoning order dated 19.7.2004 passed by CJM, Siddharth Nagar and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of aforesaid complaint case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in the complaint itself enmity is admitted. The alleged incident have taken place on 28.4.2003, however, injuries were got examined on 29.4.2003 at about 11.15 P.M. after 12 hours and according to doctor injuries appears 6-8 hours back. The complaint was lodged on the basis of false and fabricated injury report and as such entire proceeding as well as summoning order is liable to be quashed.
5. Learned AGA opposed aforesaid prayer.
6. Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. If contention of the applicants is correct then complaint is not maintainable. However, in view of injury report no finding can be recorded. The disputed question of facts requires appreciation of evidence hence at this initial stage it is not a fit case for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C. The defence version of the applicants has to be considered by the court concerned at appropriate stage. It is responsibility of the court concerned to consider the material very carefully so any innocent person is not held guilty.
7. However, in view of the aforesaid facts, if the applicants appear before the courts below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, it is expected that the same will be considered and disposed off expeditiously, if possible on the same day in view of the principles laid down by Full Bench of this Court in case of Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004(57) ALR-390 and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (4) SCC 437 . If due to any reason the bail application could not be disposed off same day, the applicants may be released on interim bail till disposal of the bail application.
8. With these observations, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby finally disposed off.
