SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(All) 2632

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Pankaj Naqvi, J.
Ankit And Another - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Another - Respondent
Application U/S 482 No. 22334 of 2015
Decided On : 06-08-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: P.C. Srivastava.
For the Respondents:Govt. Advocate.

At the stage of considering an application to quash proceedings, only a prima facie case is to be seen, and disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated upon.

Headnote:

Abuse of Process - Criminal Complaint - The court refused to quash the proceedings of a criminal complaint case, stating that at the current stage, it cannot be determined that no offense is made out against the applicants. The court emphasized that only a prima facie case is to be seen at this stage, citing relevant case law.

Fact of the Case:

The applicants filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings of a criminal complaint case pending in the court, alleging that the complaint was filed out of malice and vendetta to harass them.

Finding of the Court:

The court refused to quash the proceedings, stating that at the current stage, it cannot be determined that no offense is made out against the applicants. The court emphasized that only a prima facie case is to be seen at this stage, citing relevant case law. The court also directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court within 30 days and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously.

Issues: The main issue was whether the proceedings of the criminal complaint case should be quashed based on the contention that it was filed out of malice and vendetta to harass the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that at the current stage, only a prima facie case is to be seen, and the disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated upon. The court cited relevant case law to support its decision.

Final Decision: The court refused the prayer claimed to quash the proceedings of the criminal complaint case, but directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court within 30 days and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously. Coercive action shall be taken against them if they do not appear within the specified period.

JUDGMENT

Pankaj Naqvi, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2448 of 2014, under Sections 354, 354-Kha, 427, 323, 506 IPC, P.S.- Mandi Dhanauri, District Amroha, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, as well as summoning order dated 13.3.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha.

3. The contention is that applicants are real brothers and the applicant no.2 purchased the property along with his brother Kapil on 26.5.2014, in which at the stage of mutation, an objection was filed by O.P. no.2, but instead of contesting the said objection, the said O.P. No.2 has lodged the aforesaid complaint proceedings out of sheer malice, mischief and vendetta only with a view to harass the applicants, which is an abuse of the process of the Court.

4. From the perusal of the 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 relate to the disputed questions 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 in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, 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. The disputed defence cannot be considered at this stage.

5. The prayer claimed is refused.

However, it is directed that if the applicant(s) appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and Another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

6. For a period of six weeks from today or till the applicant(s) surrender and apply for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. However, in case, the applicant(s) do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top