Application No. 14746 of 2017. Case: Rohtas Project Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and Another. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | Application No. 14746 of 2017 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Girish Chandra Yadav, Adv. |
| Judges | Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. |
| Issue | Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482; Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 |
| Judgement Date | May 11, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed praying to quash the entire proceeding of complaint case No.2303 of 2016, Smt. Manju Lata Singh Vs. Rohtas Project Ltd, under Section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station - Shivpur, District -Varanasi.
All the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel.
The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima-facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430, (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in...
To continue reading
Request your trial