# Anjani Kumar Mishra v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1075
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-23
- **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anjani-kumar-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43728
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

1076 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Govt. Advocate, A.N. Agarwal

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of charge-sheet - Scope and
limitations.

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. At the
stage of considering a prayer for quashing, the High Court is not required to appreciate evidence or adjudicate
disputed questions of fact. Where the material collected during investigation discloses commission of
cognizable offences and raises a prima facie case, interference is not warranted. (Paras 16-18, 22)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 - Prima facie case - Disputed marital
status.

Where allegations disclose cruelty, assault, misappropriation of property, criminal intimidation and forced
abortions, the proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the plea that the complainant is not the legally
wedded wife. Determination of legitimacy of marital relationship involves disputed questions of fact requiring
appreciation of evidence and cannot be undertaken in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Paras 6, 12, 13,
15)

Criminal Trial - Appreciation of evidence - Pre-trial evaluation impermissible.

The High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or enter into an evaluation of the veracity or credibility of
prosecution evidence at the threshold. Defence pleas requiring proof must be left open to be examined by the
trial court. (Paras 17-18)

Quashing of criminal proceedings - Illustrative categories.

Criminal proceedings may be quashed only where the allegations do not constitute any offence, are absurd or
inherently improbable, are barred by law, or where prosecution is manifestly malicious. If the case does not
fall within the recognised categories, the proceedings must be allowed to continue. (Paras 19-20, 22)

Result - Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

No ground made out for quashing the charge-sheet or criminal proceedings. Application dismissed. (Paras 2324)

List of Cases cited:

Shiv Charan Lal Verma v. State of M.P., (2007) 15 SCC 369
Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667
U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police, (2009) 3 SCC 36
Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose, AIR 1963 SC 1430
Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker, AIR 1960 SC 1113
Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866
Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426

## Text

5 All. Anjani Kumar Mishra Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.

1075
refusal to look into the material so produced may result in injustice, apart from averting an exercise
in futility at the expense of valuable judicial / public time and at the same time it also held that it
cannot be understood to mean that the accused has a right to produce any document at the stage of
framing of charge having regard to mandate of Section 227, 228, 239 & 240 Cr.P.C. The document
sought to be brought by the defence at the stage of summoning to get the proceedings quashed,
should be of such unimpeachable character or of sterling quality which could satisfy the conscience
of the Court that the prosecution be quashed at its threshold as is evident in paragraph -29 of Padhi
(supra).

10. To insist for re-analysis of the seized sample in the light of Padhi (supra) is neither
desirable nor appropriate as in the opinion of the Court, the case of Padhi (supra) related to
discharge on a document, which is of sterling quality, which would have no application to the
present case.

11. In so far reliance of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Limited (supra) is concerned, the Court is
of the view that the said decision is also not applicable to the facts of the present case as an FIR
under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act r/w the Fertilizer Control Order, was sought to
be quashed on the ground of delayed dispatch of the sample for analysis, which the Court
specifically repelled and so also the contention that in the absence of any specific provision of reanalysis of the seized sample, the Control Order cannot be declared violative of Article 21.

12. The case is presently pending at the stage of framing of charge. The order impugned
does not suffer from any illegality/irregularity which could persuade this Court to invoke its
inherent jurisdiction,

13. The application is devoid of merit and is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2016

BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.

Application U/S 482 No.- 28481 Of 2010

Anjani Kumar Mishra ... Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Arvind Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
1076 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Govt. Advocate, A.N. Agarwal

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of charge-sheet - Scope and
limitations.

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. At the
stage of considering a prayer for quashing, the High Court is not required to appreciate evidence or adjudicate
disputed questions of fact. Where the material collected during investigation discloses commission of
cognizable offences and raises a prima facie case, interference is not warranted. (Paras 16-18, 22)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 - Prima facie case - Disputed marital
status.

Where allegations disclose cruelty, assault, misappropriation of property, criminal intimidation and forced
abortions, the proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the plea that the complainant is not the legally
wedded wife. Determination of legitimacy of marital relationship involves disputed questions of fact requiring
appreciation of evidence and cannot be undertaken in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Paras 6, 12, 13,
15)

Criminal Trial - Appreciation of evidence - Pre-trial evaluation impermissible.

The High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or enter into an evaluation of the veracity or credibility of
prosecution evidence at the threshold. Defence pleas requiring proof must be left open to be examined by the
trial court. (Paras 17-18)

Quashing of criminal proceedings - Illustrative categories.

Criminal proceedings may be quashed only where the allegations do not constitute any offence, are absurd or
inherently improbable, are barred by law, or where prosecution is manifestly malicious. If the case does not
fall within the recognised categories, the proceedings must be allowed to continue. (Paras 19-20, 22)

Result - Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

No ground made out for quashing the charge-sheet or criminal proceedings. Application dismissed. (Paras 2324)

List of Cases cited:

Shiv Charan Lal Verma v. State of M.P., (2007) 15 SCC 369
Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667
U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police, (2009) 3 SCC 36
Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose, AIR 1963 SC 1430
Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker, AIR 1960 SC 1113
Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866
Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.)
5 All. Anjani Kumar Mishra Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.

1077
1. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge sheet
dated 9.6.2010 in case crime no.2781 of 2009, u/s 498-A, 406, 323, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali,
district Ghazipur.

2. List has been revised. Despite repeated calls none has appeared on behalf of the opposite
party no.2. Sri Arvind Kumar Shukla, Learned counsel for the applicant is present along with
learned AGA. This application is of year 2010. In the wake of heavy pendency of cases in this
Court where dockets are already bursting on their seams there is no justifiable reason to further
procrastinate the matter. Therefore, the Court is proceeding to decide this case on merits on the
basis of its record taking the assistance of learned A.G.A. representing the State.

3. The counsel for the applicant submits that the case at hand is an outcome of false
implication wherein the opposite party no.2 who was married to some another person Mangroo
Chaurasiya in the year 1992 has lodged the F.I.R. against the applicant with allegations that she and
the applicant had got married about 12 years before in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals in a
temple and they were living as husband and wife but the applicant had subjected her with all sort of
cruelty and harassment and had got her abortion done on five earlier occasions against her will and
being posted as Constable in police department, the applicant continuously gives threat to her life
and has ultimately snatched her mobile and one lac seventy thousand rupees by committing marpit
and has eventually abandoned her. Submission of the counsel is that actually the applicant is a
married man who leads a family having a wife namely Indu and two minor children and in fact he
has neither any concern with the opposite party no.2 nor has any relation with her as alleged in the
F.I.R. and the criminal case in question has been set up at the instance of one person Visheshwar
Mishra who is inimical with applicant and the opposite party no.2 has been used as a tool to falsely
implicate the applicant. Submission is that the entire criminal case set up against the applicant is
false and frivolous and is liable to be quashed in as much as no offence u/s 498-A I.P.C. is made
out for the reason that the opposite party no.2, who was married to one Mangroo Chaurasiya earlier
and has not been divorced, cannot be treated to be the wife of applicant and if there is no legal
marriage in between applicant and opposite party no.2, the offence u/s 498-A I.P.C. would not have
any application in the present matter. The counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the
pronouncement of Supreme Court in Shiv Charan Lal Verma and another Vs. State of M.P.,(2007)
15 SCC 369, Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667, U.
Suvetha vs. State by Inspector of Police and another, (2009) 3 SCC 36.

4. Learned A.G.A. Shri Vimlendu Tripathi has vehemently opposed the submissions made
on behalf of the applicant and has submitted that the arguments of the applicant's side are in the
nature of his defence and in view of the crucially disputed question of facts, it would not be proper
for this Court to adjudicate upon such factual controversy and determine as to whether the stand
taken by the applicant is correct or not. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that the factum of
second marriage by the opposite party no. 2 with the applicant no. 1 without dissolution of her first
marriage with alleged Mangroo Chaurasiya and the factum of having no concern or relationship of
applicant with the opposite party no. 2 as is being claimed by the applicant are such issues which
require subtle appreciation of evidence led by the parties before the trial court and any
1078 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
determination over such issues would not be in consonance with the scope of inherent power of this
Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and even the case laws cited by the counsel for the applicant
also do not take the case of the applicant very far. Learned A.G.A. further contends that the above
noted stand taken by the applicant that the opposite party no. 2 is not his legally wedded wife and
he has no concern with her and hence offence under Section 498A is not made out in the light of
judgement of the Supreme Court in Shiv Charan Lal Verma's case (supra) is quite fallacious
inasmuch as in said case, the controversy had ripened up to the Supreme Court after full fledged
trial and the appellants before the Supreme Court had challenged their conviction under Section
306 and 498A I.P.C. and after considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses the Hon. Supreme
Court came to the conclusion that since the marriage with the deceased itself was null and void as
the same was performed during the life time of first wife, the conviction of appellants before the
Supreme Court under Section 498A of I.P.C. was not proper. The applicant cannot seek any benefit
from the aforesaid dicta of Hon. Supreme Court inasmuch as the prosecution of applicant accused
in the case at hand is at its very threshold. So far as judgement of Hon. Apex Court in U. Suvetha's
case (supra) is concerned, it was a case in which the question as to whether the term "relative of
husband of a woman" within the meaning of Section 498A of I.P.C. should be given an extended
meaning was involved and the facts of the case were that the appellant before the Supreme Court
was alleged to be the girl friend of husband and she was implicated in the case as a relative of
husband along with other accused persons including the husband of said case for offence under
Section 498A of I.P.C. While dealing with this question the Hon. Apex Court concluded that by no
stretch of imagination a girlfriend or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be relative
for the purpose of Section 498A of I.P.C. and the word relative brings within its purview status and
such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken
place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise. With such observation it was
held that the appellant before the Supreme Court was not a relative of the husband of the first
informant. According to learned A.G.A., this analysis makes it clear that the applicant cannot
derive any benefit out of said case law of U. Suvetha's case (supra) as the controversy involved in
the case at hand is altogether different and there was ample material available in the case diary at
the stage of taking cognizance by the court below to conclude that the opposite party no. 2 is the
wife of applicant. Learned A.G.A. contends that it is altogether different and a distinct question of
fact as to whether the opposite party no. 2 can be treated as legally wedded wife of the applicant or
not in the given circumstances of the case, which can only be decided after due appreciation of
evidence to be led by the parties during the trial.

5. According to learned A.G.A., so far as the case law cited by the applicant in Preeti
Gupta's case (supra) is concerned, the same is also not applicable in the facts of the case at hand as
the Hon. Supreme Court was dealing with a complaint case in the nature of matrimonial dispute
launched under Section 498A, 406, 341, 323 and 120B of I.P.C. and it was concluded therein that
the careful consideration of the averments of the complaint and statements of the all the witnesses
recorded at the time of filing of the complaint did not disclose any specific allegation or any
specific role against the appellants before the Supreme Court. Under such circumstances, the Apex
Court observed that the matrimonial litigations are being filed across the country in the heat of
moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations and large number of complaints are not
5 All. Anjani Kumar Mishra Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.

1079
even bonafide and are filed with oblique motive. Learned A.G.A. has this tried to distinguish the
case laws relied upon by applicant's counsel and has emphasized upon their non-applicability in the
facts of the present case.

6. In the last learned A.G.A. has also tried to demonstrate that whatever acts have been
perpetrated against the opposite party would still constitute several offences defined in the Indian
Penal Code even if during the course of trial she fails to prove that her relationship with the
applicant was having a full- fledged legitimacy according to law in the strict sense of the term.
Beating somebody and snatching her valuables or misappropriating them or torturing somebody or
forcing somebody to abort the child are not treated as offences only when they are committed with
or against a lawfully wedded wife. Challenging the legitimacy of relationship and the final findings
with regard to the same would be relevant only in determining whether the offence u/s 498-A is
constituted or not. The other offences shall still be made out. Therefore in any view of the matter,
keeping in perspective all the allegations and abundant material available in the case diary against
the applicant, there cannot be any justification to quash the charge-sheet or the impugned criminal
proceedings.

7. In the light of aforesaid submissions made at Bar, the record of the case has been
perused and it is found that the opposite party no. 2 has also filed a counter affidavit through her
counsel who is not present before the Court. A careful perusal of the record reveals that the
opposite party no. 2 has made allegations to the effect that she had married with applicant 12 years
back and was living with him as husband and wife in the full gaze of the world and they were
treated as long married couple by all and sundry but she has been ill-treated, harassed and has been
subjected to cruelty making forced abortions on five earlier occasions with continuous threats being
extended by the applicant to kill her by pouring kerosene and she was also beaten up badly and
when she made complaint to the police station Kotwali Ghazipur, neither her medical examination
was conducted nor her report was lodged just because the applicant is working as constable in
police department. As such ultimately she had to move application before the D.G.P., U.P. for
registration of criminal case against the applicant and for appropriate action against him and it was
only thereafter that the case in question was registered on 9.9.2009 initially as Case Crime No. Nil
of 2009, under Sections 498A, 406 I.P.C., at P.S.- Kotwali District- Ghazipur, whereas later on the
case was registered as case crime no. 2781 of 2009 and after due investigation, a charge sheet no.
283 of 2010, dated 9.6.2010 has been submitted before the court below which has taken cognizance
of the offence under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 506 I.P.C. vide order dated 18.6.2010.

8. On the other hand, the stand taken by the applicant in this criminal misc. application is
that the applicant is a married man having wife namely Indu and two minor children and the
applicant is in police service since 1993 and he has no concern whatsoever with the opposite party
no. 2 who has been used by his opponent namely Vishweshar Mishra as a tool to anyhow implicate
the applicant in the present criminal case on false charge that the opposite party no. 2 is wife of
applicant. Further stand taken by the applicant is that the opposite party no. 2 was married to one
Mangroo Chaurasiya in the year 1992. Stand taken by the applicant is that because of the
matrimonial discord the opposite party no. 2 had filed a case for maintenance under Section 125 of
1080 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cr.P.C. as Case No. 302 of 1997 (Smt. Sheela Chaurasiya vs. Mangroo Chaurasiya), in which a
maintenance of Rs. 350/- per month was granted by the order dated 14.10.1999 and ultimately the
case was decided on the basis of compromise with the terms that above named Mangroo
Chaurasiya has given a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as one time maintenance and the other due
amount of Rs. 5250/- through bank draft no. 220348 dated 19.3.2009 and it was also agreed upon
that civil/criminal cases between those parties would be closed on the basis of compromise. Further
stand taken by the applicant in the supplementary affidavit is that abovenamed Vishweshar Nath
Mishra is next door neighbour of the applicant and a criminal case under Section 307 I.P.C. is
pending in between the applicant's family and said Vishweshar Nath Mishra and at his instance, the
witnesses shown by the investigating officer of the present criminal case have made false
statements against the applicant during the course of investigation.

9. This Court has also perused the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 2
wherein she has rebutted the stand taken by the applicant in his pleadings and has disclosed that the
applicant had obtained job in the police service in a fraudulent manner and after due inquiry the
service of the applicant was terminated on 3.4.2010 and a criminal case is also pending against him
regarding the cheating and forgery committed by him as Case Crime No. 1769 of 2009, under
Sections 419/420 I.P.C., P.S.-Line Bazar, District- Jaunpur in which sanction for prosecution and
filing of charge-sheet was granted by the S.P.(Railway), Gorakhpur vide his order dated 17.2.2010.
It has also been disclosed in para-8 of the counter affidavit of the opposite party no. 2 that she has
divorced and has separated from the alleged Mangroo Chaurasiya. It has also been disclosed in
para-28 of the counter affidavit of the opposite party no. 2 that she had approached the Human
Right Commission, whereupon an inquiry was conducted by the concerned Circle Officer wherein
it was found that the applicant was very much living in his official quarter with the opposite party
no. 2 as husband and wife.

10. The Court has also perused the statements of Sheela Devi, Guddu, Rajesh Tiwari,
Constable Vishnu Kumar Pandey, Constable Rama Shankar Yadav and Sub Inspector Brij Bihari
Singh which were recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. during course
of investigation.

11. This Court also finds that the applicant in his rejoinder affidavit has although generally
denied the averments of opposite party no. 2 made by her in the counter affidavit but the applicant
has not disclosed any such fact, which may effectively or convincingly controvert or may have any
substantial effect over the averments made by the opposite party no. 2 in para- 8 and 28 of her
counter affidavit.

12. In view of above noted materials and pleadings available on record, this court finds
force in the submission made by learned A.G.A. It appears that the stand taken by the applicant that
the opposite party no. 2 is not his legally wedded wife and he has no concern with her and hence
offence under Section 498A is not made out in the light of judgement of the Supreme Court in Shiv
Charan Lal Verma's case (supra) appears to be wholly fallacious inasmuch as in said case, the
controversy had reached up to the Supreme Court after full fledged trial and the appellants before
5 All. Anjani Kumar Mishra Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.

1081
the Supreme Court had challenged their conviction under Section 306 and 498A I.P.C. and it was
only after considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the Hon. Supreme Court came to
the conclusion that since the marriage with the deceased itself was null and void as the same was
performed during the life time of first wife, the conviction of appellants before the Supreme Court
under Section 498A of I.P.C. was not tenable. The applicant cannot seek any benefit from the
aforesaid view of Supreme Court inasmuch as the case in hand is at the very door steps of the trial
which has yet not begun and this court cannot have a pretrial before the actual trial begins and
arrive at the final findings about the relative truth of the rival claims. Whether the earlier marriages
of the applicant or the opposite party have been terminated or that they still subsist in the eyes of
law and whether the factum of living together for twelve long years was as a result of a legitimate
relationship sufficient to make the applicant liable for committing the offence u/s 498A are all
questions depending upon the nature of proof and its rebuttal by rival sides and definitely depends
upon the nature of evidence to be produced in the trial.

13. So far as judgement of Hon. Supreme Court in U. Suvetha's case (supra) is concerned,
it was a case in which the question as to whether the term "relative of husband of a woman" within
the meaning of Section 498A of I.P.C. should be given an extended meaning was involved and the
facts of the case were that the appellants before the Supreme Court was alleged to be the girl friend
of husband and she was implicated in the case as a relative of husband along with other accused
persons including the husband of said case for offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. While delving
with this question the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that a girlfriend or even a concubine cannot
be deemed to be a relative for the purpose of Section 498A of I.P.C. and the word relative brings
within its purview a status and such status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or
adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not
arise. In the facts and circumstances of that case the Hon. Supreme Court found that the appellant
before the Supreme Court was not a relative of the husband of the first informant. This analysis
makes it clear that the applicant cannot derive any benefit out of said case law of U. Suvetha's case
(supra) as there was ample material available in the case diary at the stage of taking cognizance by
the court below to conclude that the opposite party no. 2 lived with him for so many long years as
the wife of applicant. The defence side has tried to make it a disputed question of fact as to whether
the opposite party no. 2 can be treated as legally wedded wife of the applicant or not, which in the
opinion of this Court can only be decided after due appreciation of evidence to be led by the parties
during the trial and it shall be premature for this Court to finally adjudicate upon this fact in issue
and that too in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. which has its own discrete limitations.

14. So far as the case law cited by the applicant in Preeti Gupta's case (supra) is concerned,
the same is also not found applicable in the facts of the case in hand as the Hon. Supreme Court
was dealing with a complaint case in the nature of matrimonial dispute initiated under Section
498A, 406, 341, 323 and 120B of I.P.C. and it was concluded therein that the careful consideration
of the averments of the complaint and statements of all the witnesses recorded at the time of filing
of the complaint did not disclose any specific allegation or any specific role against the appellants
before the Supreme Court. Under such eventuality, the Hon. Supreme Court in its wisdom has
observed that the matrimonial litigations are being filed across the country in the heat of moment
1082 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
over trivial issues without proper deliberations and large number of complaints are not even
bonafide and are filed with oblique motive. The observations made by Apex Court are
illuminating beacons for this Court and this Court takes full cognizance of the same. But in
the given peculiar facts of this case the applicant cannot make much out of it and even this
case law does not go very far to help the applicant.

15. In the light of aforesaid factual matrix claimed by the either side, this Court has
to consider as to whether the prayer sought by the applicant for quashing of the charge-sheet
against him for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 506 I.P.C. is liable to be accepted or
not. For this purpose it is amply clear from the record of the case that the material available
in the case diary is against the applicant and discloses commission of said offences by the
applicant but the same has been controverted by the applicant on the basis of certain facts
regarding earlier marriage of opposite party no. 2 with abovenamed Mangroo Chaurasiya in
the year 1992 and the proceeding of maintenance launched by the opposite party no. 2
against said Mangroo Chaurasiya under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and its culmination on the
ground of compromise for a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as one time maintenance. The
applicant has also controverted the allegations against him by pressing the fact of enmity
with his next door neighbour namely Vishweshar Nath Mishra suggesting his instrumentality
in launching of criminal case in question against the applicant.

16. This Court is conscious of the judicious limitations and the discrete restraint
required to be exercised while using the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
and the advisability of its use in rarest for rare cases where the bare perusal of materials
available in case diary does not disclose any offence or when there is any statutory bar in
proceeding with the prosecution or where the prosecution itself is an abuse of the process of
the court under the given facts. In the present matter, the stand taken by the applicant
requires appreciation of evidence to determine disputed questions of fact which is the sole
domain of a trial court.

17. It is so obvious that most of the contentions raised by Applicant's counsel relate
to the above mentioned hotly contentious questions of fact. The court has also been called
upon to adjudge the worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of
various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon on behalf of applicant.
The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been
questioned and false implication has been pleaded. The submissions raised in the application
on behalf of the applicant call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be
adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions
made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case.
This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial
before the actual trial begins.

18. 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.
5 All. Anjani Kumar Mishra Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.

1083
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.

19. 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.

20. 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 which the criminal
proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has also recognized
certain other categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution
may be successfully invoked.

21. Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has already
adverted to the entire record and facts of the case and has discussed them hereinbefore.

22. A threadbare discussion or giving specific findings on various facts and
circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being
purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to
either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the
material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has
been submitted makes out offences and therefore a prima facie case against the accused is
very much disclosed at this stage and I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet
or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any
of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

23. The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the
Court's process either.

24. The application, therefore, being sans merit stands dismissed.
1084 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.

Contempt Application (Civil) No.- 4884 Of 2014

Pt. Nawin Sharma ...Applicant
Versus
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, I.A.S., Collector Agra ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pt. N. Sharma, In Person

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
S.C.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Wilful disobedience - Direction to pass award - Compliance.

Writ court directing the Collector only to pass an award under the Works of Defence Act, 1903 without
adjudicating the merits of the claim or prescribing the manner of decision - Authority passing an award
pursuant to such direction - Award granting zero compensation on the ground that land remained
agricultural and no loss was caused by imposition of restrictions - Passing of such award constituting
substantial compliance - Mere dissatisfaction with the reasoning or outcome of the award not amounting to
wilful disobedience - No contumacious conduct made out. (Paras 6, 7, 12)

Contempt jurisdiction - Scope - Fresh cause of action.

Decision taken pursuant to a writ direction giving rise to a fresh cause of action - Correctness or legality of
such decision to be examined in appropriate proceedings - Contempt court not to examine merits or sit in
appeal unless the decision is in gross violation of the writ direction - Authority not having been directed to
decide in a particular manner, action taken held bona fide. (Para 12)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 340 - Perjury - False statement - Meaning.

Mere incorrect or erroneous statement not constituting a false statement - False statement requiring proof of
knowledge of falsity or reckless indifference to truth with intent to deceive - Documents relied upon relating
to different plot numbers - Disputed questions of fact not determinable in contempt or perjury proceedings
- Absence of material to show conscious falsity or intent to mislead - Proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
held not maintainable. (Paras 10, 11, 13, 14)

Result - Contempt application consigned to record; notices discharged - Application under Section
340 Cr.P.C. rejected with liberty to challenge the award before appropriate forum. (Para 15).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.)