Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Sukhraj – Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. 12371 of 2020
Decided On : 02-03-2021
Section 482 - Quashing of Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 195, 340, 341, 343 - The court refused to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, only in the rarest of rare cases. The court also clarified that it did not adjudicate on the merits of the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing the entire proceedings of Misc. Case No. 1064 of 2017, under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The case related to a forged caste certificate used in an election.
Finding of the Court:
The court refused to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, only in the rarest of rare cases. The court also clarified that it did not adjudicate on the merits of the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, only in the rarest of rare cases. The court also clarified that it did not adjudicate on the merits of the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The court refused to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, only in the rarest of rare cases. The court also clarified that it did not adjudicate on the merits of the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Wajid Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This application/petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Misc. Case No. 1064 of 2017, under Section 340 Cr.P.C. pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar (Abdul Taiyab versus Sukhraj) Police Station-Dudhara, District-Sant Kabir Nagar.
3. The facts of the case as per the petition as also the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant are that one Eklakh Ahmad filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 30.08.2012, against Mohd. Tayyab @ Abdul Taiyab opposite party no. 2 and others, registered as complaint case no. 1075 of 2013, which, after recording of the statement of the complainant therein under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of the present applicant as P.W.-1 in that case was rejected in non prosecution under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the Magistrate.
4. The applicant on 17.01.2017 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in which the Judicial Magistrate Sant Kabir Nagar issued direction to the concerned Police Station to register a first information report against the opposite party no. 2 and in pursuance thereof an F.I.R. in Case Crime No. 1590 of 2017, Police Station-Dhudara, District-Sant Kabir Nagar, under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., was registered. After investigation a final report was submitted against which, the applicant filed a protest petition upon which the final report was rejected and the Complaint Case No. 19/2018 was registered against the opposite party no. 2.
5. The complaint related to the alleged forged caste certificate dated 31.05.2000 on the basis of which the opposite party no. 2 contested the election of Gram Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat. Later on the Caste Certificate was cancelled by the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee by order dated 28.12.2018, finding that the opposite party no. 2 did not belong to that caste for which the caste certificate was issued.
6. The opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. on 04.10.2017, against the applicant, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 1064 of 2017 and is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar.
7. The application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has been filed on the averments interalia that the present applicant although was a witness as P.W. 1 in Complaint Case No. 1075/2013, which was dismissed in non-prosecution on 08.08.2017, but without disclosing those facts, the applicant himself filed application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no. 2, and as such action be taken against him.
8. By the impugned order dated 19.07.2019, the Magistrate directed that the application filed by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 340 Cr.P.C. will be decided on merits along with the Complaint Case No. 19/2018 filed by the applicant.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has been filed with ill will as the applicant was a witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in the Complaint Case No. 1075 of 2013, although no action has been taken by opposite party no. 2 against Iqlaq Ahmad the complainant of Case No. 1075 of 2013. He submits that the Caste Certificate of the opposite party no. 2 having been cancelled by the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee as forged one, the applicant is not liable to be proceeded against in Case No. 1064 of 2017 under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the Magistrate ought to have decided the application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. at this stage and ought not to have directed for decision on merits with Complaint Case No. 19/2018.
11. Learned A.G.A. submits that by order dated 19.07.2019 only this much has been provided that the application filed by the opposite party no. 2, under Section 340 Cr.P.C. shall be considered
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
