Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Ravindra Nath Dwivedi And 2 Others v. State Of U.p And Another

Ravindra Nath Dwivedi And 2 Others v. State Of U.p And Another

(High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2878 of 2022 | 09-02-2022

Umesh Kumar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants virtually and learned A.G.A. appearing for State physically and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash summoning order dated 26.10.2021 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 246 of 2019 (Manoj Kumar Versus Ravindra Nath Dwivedi and others), under Sections 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), 3((1) (Dha) and 3(2) (5Ka) of SC/ST. Act, P. S.-Cantt., DistrictVaranasi, pending in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi.

3. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that prima facie offences are made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. Similarly, while considering a prayer for quashing of summoning order in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court also cannot examine any defence of accused, which has yet to be placed before Court below. Stage of placing defence of accused does not arise at the stage of summoning and, therefore, this Court also will not examine such defence at this stage.

5. Time and again it has been highlighted by Supreme Court that at the stage of summoning factual query and assessment of defence evidence is beyond purview of scrutiny under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The allegations being factual in nature can be decided only subject to evidence. In view of settled legal proposition, no findings can be recorded about veracity of allegations at this juncture in absence of evidence. Apex Court has highlighted that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be sparingly/rarely invoked with complete circumspection and caution. Very recently in Criminal Appeal No.675 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1151 of 2018) (Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) decided on 15th April, 2019, Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under :

"15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.

16. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence.

17. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case."

(Emphasis added)

6. Recently, above view has been reiterated by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2020 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Yogendra Singh Jadon and Another) decided on 31.01.2020.

7. No material irregularity in the procedure followed by Court below has been pointed out. It is not a case of grave injustice justifying interference in this application at this stage.

8. In view thereof, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in summoning order.

9. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the competent Court below is to act, in accordance with law.

10. With the above observation, this application stands disposed of.

Advocate List

  • Sanjay Kumar Singh

  • G.A.

Bench
  • Hon'ble Justice Umesh Kumar
Eq Citations
  • LQ
  • LQ/AllHC/2022/3206
Head Note

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 482 — Quashment of proceedings — Prayer for — Quashing of summoning order as well as entire proceedings — Prayer rejected — Held, prima facie offences are made out against the applicants — All the submissions made at the Bar relate to disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by the High Court under S. 482 Cr.P.C. Similarly, while considering a prayer for quashing of summoning order in application under S. 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court also cannot examine any defence of accused, which has yet to be placed before Court below — Stage of placing defence of accused does not arise at the stage of summoning and, therefore, the High Court also will not examine such defence at this stage — Time and again it has been highlighted by Supreme Court that at the stage of summoning factual query and assessment of defence evidence is beyond purview of scrutiny under S. 482 Cr.P.C. The allegations being factual in nature can be decided only subject to evidence — In view of settled legal proposition, no findings can be recorded about veracity of allegations at this juncture in absence of evidence — Jurisdiction under S. 482 Cr.P.C. be sparingly/rarely invoked with complete circumspection and caution — No material irregularity in the procedure followed by Court below has been pointed out — It is not a case of grave injustice justifying interference in this application at this stage — In view thereof, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in summoning order — However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the competent Court below is to act, in accordance with law — Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 406, 504 and 506 — SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 — Ss. 3(1)(Da), 3((1) (Dha) and 3(2) (5Ka) — Quashing of proceedings (Paras 3 to 10)