Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Umesh Chandra Tripathi, J.
Shitala Prasad Gaud And Others - Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. And Another - Opposite Party
Application U/S 482 No. - 15497 of 2019
Decided On : 02-05-2019
For the Applicant : Manoj Kumar Singh
The court's decision was based on the principle that it could not adjudicate on disputed questions of fact at the stage of quashing proceedings, and it also considered the nature of the alleged offences and directed prompt consideration of bail applications and discharge applications, in line with legal requirements.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of Proceedings - Abuse of Process of Court
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought to quash the summoning order and proceedings of a complaint case filed against them under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. They argued that no offence was disclosed and that the prosecution was mala fide, while the State opposed the prayer, asserting that there was sufficient material to justify the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court refused to quash the proceedings, stating that it could not adjudicate on disputed questions of fact at this stage. However, it noted that the alleged offences were not punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years and directed that bail applications should be considered and decided promptly, in line with a previous court order. The court also directed that any application for discharge should be decided by the trial court in accordance with the law, and ordered a 60-day period of no coercive action against the applicants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should quash the summoning order and proceedings, considering the contentions of the applicants and the opposition from the State.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the principle that it could not adjudicate on disputed questions of fact at the stage of quashing proceedings. It also considered the nature of the alleged offences and directed prompt consideration of bail applications and discharge applications, in line with legal requirements.
Final Decision: The court refused to quash the proceedings but provided directions for prompt consideration of bail applications and discharge applications, and ordered a 60-day period of no coercive action against the applicants.
JUDGMENT :
Umesh Chandra Tripathi, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. in opposition and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 10.08.2018 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) II/ A.C.J.M. Jaunpur as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1269/2018 (Geeta Devi Vs. Shitala Prasad and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station - Kerakat, District -Jaunpur.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that from the material brought on the record, no offence is disclosed against the applicants. The present prosecution launched against the applicants is wholly mala fide as such, the present proceedings are sheer abuse of the process of the court.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made and contention thereof raised by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that material on record is sufficient for justifying initiation of proceedings and passing of the impugned summoning order by the court below.
5. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out.
6. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings as well as the summoning order in the aforesaid case is refused.
8. However, none of the aforesaid offences alleged against applicants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.
9. In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and another v. State of U.P. and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190, it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.
10. It is further directed that if applicants file an application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. for discharge at appropriate stage, the same shall be decided by the trial court by a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.
11. For a period of 60 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them.
12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.
