Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Dhruva Singh & Others v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 14377 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19878 (23 November 2006)


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).


Court No.55

Criminal Misc. Application No. 14377 of 2006

Dhruva Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble V.D.Chaturvedi, J.


This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the proceedings of complaint case No.1201 of 2006 Laxman Singh and others Versus Dhruva Singh and others, under sections 323, 504, 506 and 452 I.P.C. Police Station Anwarganj District Kanpur Nagar and also to quash the order dated 19.8.2006 whereby the petitioners were summoned on the complaint.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners are that on 22.9.2005 an incident took place between the petitioners and the opposite party no.2 whereupon the proceedings under section 151, 107/116 Cr.P.C. were initiated;  that 6 months after  the said incident,  the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint wherein  the impugned order dated 19.8.2006 was passed; that the petitioners on an  entirely different incident dated 31.5.2005 had filed a complaint on 25.6.2005 against opposite party no.2 wherein the opposite party no.2 and other accused were summoned; that the  complaint filed by opposite party no.2 was in reply to the complaint filed by the petitioners; that the fact regarding the previous litigations  regarding initiation of proceedings under section 107/116 Cr.P.C. and regarding the pendency of a complaint filed by the petitioners) were not disclosed in the complaint filed  by opposite party no.2 hence opposite party no.2 did not come with clean hand in his complaint. He also argued that these malafides were not looked into by the Magistrate. He drew my attention to the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme  Court in  State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) S.C.C. 335  and read out Section  482 Cr.P.C.  and argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court permits the interference wherein the criminal cases  are initiated on malafide ground. He also argued that in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, it would be  expedient to pass an order under section 482 Cr.P.C.

The learned A.G.A. pointed out that the incident mentioned in the complaint of opposite party no.2 is different from the incident whereupon the petitioner filed the complaint against opposite party no.2 . He also argued that initiation of proceedings under section 107/116 of Cr.P.C. is no bar for filing of complaint or for lodging of an F.I.R. for the same incident.

At the time of disposing of a complaint the Magistrate passes an order  either under section 203 or under section 204 of Cr.P.C. At  that time,  the accused persons have no locus standi. Besides it the Magistrate are not supposed to scrutinize the evidence meticulously which was produced before him, under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate are  required only to see whether upon   the evidence produced before him, any offence is  made out or not. If  any offence is made out on the basis of such evidence  and if the Magistrate  on such evidence forms the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding  he is justified in passing an order under section 204 Cr.P.C. If on the perusal of such evidence,  the Magistrate forms an opinion  that there is no sufficient ground to proceed he may dismiss the same under section 203 Cr.P.C.

It is settled principle that where  two views are possible or two orders may possibly be passed but the Magistrate adopts one of these two  views and passes the order according to law, his discretion should not be interfered under inherent powers of this Court.

In the case in hand the impugned order shows that the learned Magistrate paid full heed to the statement recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and was convinced by the injury report dated 22.9.2005 of the injured persons and hence he passed the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is perfectly justified. No other view  was  possible at that juncture.

I agree with the learned A.G.A. that the initiation of the proceedings under section 107/116 Cr.P.C. is not a bar for filing of the complaint about an  incident. It may also be mentioned at this juncture that the proceedings under section 107/116 Cr.P.C. were the proceedings to prevent the breach of peace and not to convict the guilty.

The petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

Considering that the case was initiated on a complaint and considering  the nature of the offence complained of,  it would be appropriate for the trial court that the bail application of the petitioners if and when  moved, be disposed of expeditiously and if possible same day.

Certify the judgment to the trial court.

Dt. 23.11.2006



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


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 |

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