Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM JAS versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Jas v. State Of U.P. And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 4044 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 2641 (9 September 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 54

Criminal Misc. Application No.  4044 Of 2005.

Ram Jas Vs. State of U.P. and another.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

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

This application has been filed for quashing the proceedings initiated on the basis of the complaint case No. 88 of 2000, Ganga Sagar Vs. Ram Jas, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist, Bhadohi. The order dated 30.10.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist, Bhadohi and order dated 21.3.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Bhadohi have been challenged in this application.

I have gone through the record. I am not inclined to quash the proceedings at this stage in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The argument on behalf of the counsel for the applicant is that bar of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is also hindrance and no criminal proceeding could be initiated since the matter was pending before the Tehsildar. The bar of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. will not operate if the matter is enquired by the Tehsildar and, therefore, this prayer is not acceptable. However, the matter is regarding some will dated 17.1.1996 and it is submitted that the criminal proceeding has been initiated only with a view to cause harassment to the applicant and, therefore, proceedings should be quashed.

After hearing learned counsels and going through the record, I do not find any merit in this case to quash the proceedings at this stage in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.  

The Apex Court had held in various decisions  in the cases of R. P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960, S.C., 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal, 1991 (28) A.C.C., 111 (S.C.), Union of India Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another, 2003 (47) A.C.C. 433, where the legal position has clearly been settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie established the offence and only when the court is of the opinion that chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the proceedings could be quashed. In the case of S.W. Palanitkar and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2002 (44) A.C.C. 168 it has been ruled that quashing of the criminal proceeding is an exception than a rule. Therefore exercise of power should be consistent with the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and should be limited to very extreme cases and must be treated as rarest of the rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. On bare reading of the decisions of the Apex Court, I am of the view that the instant case is not one of the rarest of the rare case in which the proceedings or charge sheet can be quashed.

 However, the applicant is permitted to approach the court at the appropriate stage for claiming discharge through his counsel and in the event such an application is moved before the court concerned, the same shall be considered and decided by a well reasoned order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is made clear that the personal appearance at the stage of discharge should not be compelled.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is finally disposed of.

Dt/- 26.4.2005

Rmk.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.