Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Ravendra Shukla And Another - Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Govt. Lko. And Another - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. 6477 of 2024
Decided On : 29-07-2024
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - QUASHING OF CHARGES - Sections 419, 420, 504, 506 IPC; Section 482 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 419, 420, 504, and 506 of the IPC concerning cheating and criminal intimidation, and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings. The court emphasized the importance of full disclosure of material facts by litigants and the consequences of concealing such facts, which influenced its decision to reject the application for quashing the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, Ravendra Shukla and Kumari Mamta, sought to quash a charge sheet and summoning order related to criminal proceedings against them under various sections of the IPC. They previously filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which was disposed of, allowing them to surrender and apply for bail, but they failed to appear before the trial court as directed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicants had concealed material facts regarding their earlier application and the summoning order, which they had previously challenged but did not press. The court noted that the concealment of facts undermined their credibility and justified the rejection of their current application.
Issues: Whether the second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was maintainable given the prior application on the same facts and whether the concealment of material facts warranted dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a litigant must approach the court with clean hands and disclose all material facts. The concealment of facts can lead to the denial of relief. The court reiterated that successive applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not permissible if the same grounds were available in the earlier application.
Final Decision: The court rejected the application for quashing the charge sheet and summoning order, emphasizing the importance of honesty and full disclosure in legal proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
(Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.) :
1. Heard Shri Gurudutt Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Shashi Kant Mishra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2 and perused the record.
2. The applicants, namely, Ravendra Shukla and Kumari Mamta, have approached this Court seeking following main reliefs:-
(b) To quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 258 of 2022: State of Uttar Pradesh vs Mamta and others arises out of Crime No. 0037/2021 under Section 419. 420, 504, and 506 1.P.C. registered at Police Station Cantt, Ayodhya.
(c) To stay the operation and implementation of the proceeding pending before the learned Trial Court A.C.J.M-I of District, Ayodhya, registered as Case No: 258 of 2022: State of Uttar Pradesh vs Mamta and others, during the pendency and final disposal of the instant petition."
3. From the material available on record, it is apparent that applicants approached this Court by means of Application U/s 482 No.5705 of 2022 "Mamta and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another" challenging the charge sheet No.221 of 2021 dated 09.06.2021 in Case Crime No.037 of 2021 under Sections 419, 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Cantt, District-Ayodhya and also the summoning order dated 03.02.2022 passed by ACJM-I, Faizabad now Ayodhya bearing Case No.258 of 2022.
4. The above indicated Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.5705 of 2022 was disposed of on 26.08.2022. The order dated 26.08.2022 reads as under:-
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners want to surrender and apply for regular bail. Only prayer is that while considering the bail application of the petitioners, trial Court should take into consideration order dated 07.10.2021 read with judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors: SLP(Crl) No.5191 of 2021.
3. Considering the aforesaid submission, present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to surrender before the trial Court within a period of 15 days and apply for regular bail. Trial Court is directed to consider the bail application of the petitioners in accordance with law and also take into account the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra)."
5. It appears from the above quoted order that the charge sheet No.221 of 2021 dated 09.06.2021 in Case Crime No.037 of 2021 under Sections 419, 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Cantt, District-Ayodhya, which has also been challenged in the instant case, was assailed and summoning order was also assailed and thus, it is apparent that entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.258 of 2022 "State vs. Mamta and another" arising out of Case Crime No.037 of 2021 was challenged and the counsel for the applicants did not press the prayers sought in the earlier petition and prayed for seeking benefit of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021 and considering the said prayer, this Court disposed of the Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.5705 of 2022 with
A litigant must disclose all material facts when seeking relief from the court, and failure to do so can result in the denial of that relief. Successive applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ....
Repeated applications for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable without new circumstances, as they constitute an abuse of process and forum shopping.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and that filing a successive petition without new grounds is not an a....
A second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable if based on changed circumstances, despite a previous application being withdrawn.
The applicant, who concealed facts and filed a false affidavit, and made a mockery of the orders of the lower court by avoiding the process of summon, bailable warrant, non-bailable warrant, and the ....
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
