# Haddish & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1468
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-23
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 1950 of 2020
- **Bench:** Suresh Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/haddish-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45518
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal
CodeSections 419, 420, 406, 504, 506, 352 -
Appeal against conviction.

 At the stage of charge the court is not
required to consider pros and cons of the case
and to hold an enquiry to find out truth. Even
in a case of grave or strong suspicion charge
has been framed. The court has to consider
broad probabilities of the case, total effect of
the evidence and the documents produced
including basic infirmities, if any. (para 5)

It is settled law that the Magistrate, at the
stage of taking cognizance and summoning, is
required to apply his judicial mind only with a
view to taking cognizance of the offence, or.
The learned Magistrate is not required to
evaluate the merits of the material or evidence
in support of the complaint, because the
Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to
find out whether the materials would lead to a
conviction or not. (para 7)
2 All. Haddish & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1469
Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on
the ground that the allegations made therein
appear to be a civil nature. If the ingredients of
the offence alleged against the accused are
prima facie made out in the complaint, the
criminal
proceedings
shall
not
be
interdicted.(para 7)

From the perusal of the material on record and
looking into the facts of the case at this stage it
cannot be said that no offence is made out
against the applicants. (para 8)

Application u/s 482 rejected. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

1468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
matrix because the same is under the
domain of Trial court.

5. Death, being an unnatural death,
within seven years of marriage, coupled with
accusation of demand of dowry and cruelty
with regard to it against accused in-laws was
there in the first information report. The same
was also there in the statement, recorded, under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Autopsy examination
report as well as inquest proceeding reveal that
the death was owing to ante mortem hanging
and asphyxia as a result of it, the size, situation
and other internal situation of organs were
indicative that though it was shown to be a
suicidal death, but, it was manipulated to be a
suicidal death. But, it is to be seen during trial
by the Trial court. It was very well there at the
time of objection in response to Bail
Application and mentioned in the order passed,
while deciding Bail Application. Hence, at this
juncture, there is no ground for granting any
indulgence for reliefs prayed for.

6. Accordingly, this Application, being
devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and it
stands dismissed accordingly.

7. However, it is directed that if the
applicants appear and surrender before the
court below within 30 days from today and
apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be
considered and decided in view of the settled
law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati
and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in
2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra
Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

8. For a period of 30 days from today, no
coercive action shall be taken against the
applicants.

9. In case, if the applicants do not appear
before the Court below within the aforesaid
period, coercive action shall be taken against
them.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1468

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 1950 of 2020

Haddish & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Shahroze Khan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal
CodeSections 419, 420, 406, 504, 506, 352 -
Appeal against conviction.

 At the stage of charge the court is not
required to consider pros and cons of the case
and to hold an enquiry to find out truth. Even
in a case of grave or strong suspicion charge
has been framed. The court has to consider
broad probabilities of the case, total effect of
the evidence and the documents produced
including basic infirmities, if any. (para 5)

It is settled law that the Magistrate, at the
stage of taking cognizance and summoning, is
required to apply his judicial mind only with a
view to taking cognizance of the offence, or.
The learned Magistrate is not required to
evaluate the merits of the material or evidence
in support of the complaint, because the
Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to
find out whether the materials would lead to a
conviction or not. (para 7)
2 All. Haddish & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1469
Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on
the ground that the allegations made therein
appear to be a civil nature. If the ingredients of
the offence alleged against the accused are
prima facie made out in the complaint, the
criminal
proceedings
shall
not
be
interdicted.(para 7)

From the perusal of the material on record and
looking into the facts of the case at this stage it
cannot be said that no offence is made out
against the applicants. (para 8)

Application u/s 482 rejected. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-

1. Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2019 Sau Kamal
Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The St. of Mah. &
others.

2. R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punj., A.I.R. 1960
S.C. 866,

3. St. of Har. Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.)
426,

4. St. of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.)
192,

5. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd.
Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC
(Cr.) 283.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suresh Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned AGA for the State.

2.

The
present
482
Cr.P.C.
application has been filed to quash the
order dated 16.09.2016, passed by Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Bansi,
District
Siddharth Nagar, in criminal case No. 975
of 2015, arising out of case crime No. 274
of 2015,1. as well as the order dated
02.03.2019, passed by Additional Session
Judge, Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar, in
Criminal Revision No. 183 of 2016 (State
vs. Haddish and others), P.S. Mishraulia,
District Siddharth Nagar. It is further
prayed that to stay the further proceedings
of Criminal Case No. 975 of 2015, case
crime No. 274 of 2015 (State vs. Haddish
and others), under Sections 419, 420, 406,
504, 506, 352 IPC, pending in the court of
Judicial
Magistrate,
Bansi,
District
Siddharth Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits
that
the
learned
Judicial
Magistrate,
Bansi,
District
Siddharth
Nagar,
has
rejected
the
discharge
application filed by the applicants on
16.09.2016, under section 239 Cr.P.C.
seeking discharge under section 419, 420,
406, 504, 506, 352 IPC, and against the
impugned order of learned magistrate
rejected the application of discharge from
charge levelled against the applicants
being aggrieved, the applicants has filed
criminal revision before the Additional
Sessions Judge, Bansi, District Siddharth
Nagar, and the Session Judge has also
dismissed the revision vide order dated
02.03.2019 filed by the applicants. He
further submits that no case is made out
against the applicants and the Investigating
Officer
without
collecting
sufficient
evidence submitted charge sheet against
them. He also submitted that the applicants
filed complaint case against Station House
Officer as well as opposite party no. 2,
they have been summoned to face the trial
and due to this reason opposite party no. 2
lodged the FIR against the applicants and
charge sheet was submitted by the
investigating officer against the applicants.
He next submitted that money dispute is
involved between the applicant and the
opposite party no. 2. It is also submitted
that the allegations made in the FIR
appears to be civil in nature. Facts and
circumstances of the case do not constitute
1470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the criminal charge against the applicants,
hence the whole proceeding is liable to be
quashed.

4.

Learned
AGA
vehemently
opposed and submitted that the evidence
collected by the investigating officer is
sufficient to frame the charge against the
applicants, hence there is no occasion to
quash the proceeding and application
under section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be
rejected.

5. It is almost settled the legal
position that at the stage of charge the
court is not required to consider pros and
cons of the case and to hold an enquiry to
find
out
truth.
Marshalling
and
appreciation of evidence is not in the
domain of the court at that point of time;
what is required from the court is to sift
and weigh the materials for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a
prima facie case for framing a charge
against the accused has been made out.
Even in a case of grave or strong suspicion
charge has been framed. The court has to
consider broad probabilities of the case,
total effect of the evidence and the
documents
produced
including
basic
infirmities, if any. If on the basis of the
material on record, the court could form an
opinion that the accused might have
committed offence, it can frame the
charge, but the court should not weigh the
evidence as if it were holding trial.
Accused can be discharged only when the
charge is groundless.

6. In my opinion, the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as
well as Session Court has taken into
account all the relevant materials and
passed the impugned order in accordance
with law. So far as the contention of
learned counsel for the applicants is that
the criminal prosecution against the
applicants could not launch because the
allegation imputed against the applicants is
civil in nature.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2019 Sau
Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State
of Maharashtra & others held that:-

" It is settled law that the
Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance
and summoning, is required to apply his
judicial mind only with a view to taking
cognizance of the offence, or in other words, to
find out whether a prima facie cas has been
made out for summoning the accused persons.
The learned Magistrate is not required to
evaluate the merits of the material or evidence
in support of the complaint, because the
Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to
find out whether the materials would lead to a
conviction or not.

A perusal of the complaint discloses
that prima facie, offences that are alleged
against the respondents. The correctness or
otherwise of the said allegations has to be
decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of
issuance of process it is not open to the Courts
to stifle the proceedings by entering into the
merits of the contentions made on behalf of the
accused. Criminal complaints cannot be
quashed only on the ground that the
allegations made therein appear to be a civil
nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged
against the accused are prima facie made out
in the complaint, the criminal proceedings
shall not be interdicted.".

8. From the perusal of the material
on record and looking into the facts of the
case at this stage it cannot be said that no
offence is made out against the applicants.
All the submission made at the bar relates
2 All. Kaju & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1471
to the disputed question of fact, which cannot
be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise
of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen
in the light of the law laid down by Supreme
Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of
Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.)
426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992
SCC
(Cr.)
192
and
lastly
Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd.
Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005
SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the
accused cannot be considered at this stage.

9. On aforesaid reason, the application
under section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and
hence the same is dismissed.

10. However, it is provided that if the
applicants appear and surrender before the court
below within one month from today and apply
for bail, then the bail application of the applicants
be considered and decided expeditiously in view
of the settled law laid by Hon'ble Supreme
Court. For a period of one month from today or
till the disposal of the application for grant of bail
whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be
taken against the applicants. However, in case,
the applicants do not appear before the Court
below within the aforesaid period, coercive
action shall be taken against them.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1471

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 2071 of 2020

Kaju & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Brij Raj, Sri Ram Sagar Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973- Section 190(1) - "Cognizance"
is taken when the Magistrate applies his judicial
mind to the facts mentioned in a complaint or to a
police report or upon information received from any
person regarding an offence.

At the stage of taking congnizance, Magistrate can
simply form an opinion as to whether the case is fit
for taking and committing the matter for trial or not.

B. Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 204- Issuance of process takes
place only after taking cognizance of the offence
when, after application of mind, the Magistrate finds
a prima facie case made out against the offender.

C. Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 482- Scope- Disputed questions of
fact cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in
exercise of power conferred u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen and
the disputed defence of the accused cannot be
considered which can only be adjudicated upon in
the course of trial.

Prayer for quashing refused- Applicants directed to
surrender before the court within 30 days.
 (Para 6,7,8,11,12,14,15,17)

Application u/s 482 Cr.Pc disposed of.

Case law discussed: -

1. Akash Garg Vs. St. of U.P. (2011) 11 ADJ
849.

2. R.P. Kapur Vs. St. of Punj., A.I.R. (1960)
S.C. 866,

3. St. of Har. Vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC (Cr.)
426,

4. St. of Bih. Vs. P.P.Sharma, (1992) SCC (Cr.)
192