# Nagesh Shukla v. State Of U.P & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 6 ILRA 356 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-06-22 - **Bench:** Pratyush Kumar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nagesh-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43961 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Protest petition - Final report submitted by police - Magistrate's power to take cognizance - Scope of interference at summoning stage - Prima facie satisfaction - Limited jurisdiction under inherent powers. PROTEST PETITION - Final report opining no offence - Examination of complainant and witnesses on oath - Summoning order passed after due application of mind - Validity. SUMMONING ORDER - Stage of cognizance - Court required only to see existence of prima facie case - Defence plea and appreciation of evidence impermissible - Allegation of mala fides not ground for quashing when material supports prosecution. PENAL CODE, 1860 - Sections 323, 504, 506 - SC/ST Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - Complaint case - Cognizance taken on protest petition. In Result - Application dismissed. ## Text 356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (3) The acceptance of the sum of money for compounding an offence in accordance with sub-section (1) by the Appropriate Government or an officer empowered in this behalf empowered in this behalf shall be deemed to amount to an acquittal within the meaning of section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (4) The Compounding of an offence under sub-section (1) shall be allowed only once for any person or consumer. 8. Perusal of the provisions of Section 152(2) clearly indicates that on payment of the sum of money in accordance with sub-Section (1) any person in custody in connection with that offence shall be set at liberty and no proceedings shall be instituted or continued against such consumer or person in any criminal court. The provisions of Section 152(1) starts with a non-obstante clause which has overriding effect over the provisions of Cr.P.C. The acceptance of the compounding charges for offence in accordance with sub Section (1) by the appropriate authority empowered in this behalf shall be deemed to amount to an acquittal within the meaning of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sub Section 4 of Section 152 further provides that compounding of an offence under sub-section (1) shall be allowed only once for any person or consumer. 9. In view of the provisions of Section 152 of the Act and the facts pleaded by the applicant that pursuant to the notice dated 25.4.2013 issued by the Executive Engineer U.P. Power, Corporation Ltd., Varanasi the compounding charges of Rs. 60,000/- has been deposited, it appears appropriate to dispose of this application granting liberty to the applicant to move an appropriate application before the Court below along with proof of deposit of compounding charges within two weeks from today and on presentation of such application the Court below, after due verification; shall pass appropriate order in the light of the provisions of Section 152 of the Act, within a further period of 6 weeks. 10. For a period of eight weeks further proceedings in the aforenoted case No.114 of 2013 shall be kept in abeyance against the applicant. 11. With the aforesaid direction this application is disposed of. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.06.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRATYUSH KUMAR, J. Application U/s 482 No.- 19029 Of 2016 Nagesh Shukla ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P & Anr. ...Respondents 6 All. Nagesh Shukla Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 357 Counsel for the Applicant: Sipahi Lal Shukla Counsel for the Respondents: G.A. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Protest petition - Final report submitted by police - Magistrate's power to take cognizance - Scope of interference at summoning stage - Prima facie satisfaction - Limited jurisdiction under inherent powers. PROTEST PETITION - Final report opining no offence - Examination of complainant and witnesses on oath - Summoning order passed after due application of mind - Validity. SUMMONING ORDER - Stage of cognizance - Court required only to see existence of prima facie case - Defence plea and appreciation of evidence impermissible - Allegation of mala fides not ground for quashing when material supports prosecution. PENAL CODE, 1860 - Sections 323, 504, 506 - SC/ST Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - Complaint case - Cognizance taken on protest petition. In Result - Application dismissed. (Delivered by Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. By the instant petition, applicant-accused seeks quashing of the proceeding of Complaint Case No.1039 of 2014 (Dilip Kumar Vs. Nagesh) under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(i) (X) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Barsathi, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of Special Magistrate, SC/ST Act/Additional Special Judge, Court No.4, Jaunpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the FIR lodged by Dilip Kumar, after investigation, circle officer has submitted the final report dated 18th October, 2013, opining therein that no offence was found to be made out against the present applicant. He further submits that the investigating officer during investigation has recorded the statement of witnesses including wife of opposite party no.2 Dilip Kumar, who has also stated that no offence was committed by the applicant. He further submits that on account of enmity of former Pradhan Rajit Shukla, the applicant the present Pradhan of the village is being harassed and unnecessarily prosecuted. 4. On behalf of the State, learned AGA submits that after submission of final report, protest petition was filed by the first informant/injured. Three witnesses were examined by the court on oath. They all had supported the version contained in the First Information Report. Only thereafter on 6th January, 2015, summoning order was passed after noticing the facts of the case and evidence adduced by the first informant. He further submits that commission of cognizable offence is made 358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES out against the present applicant. For this reason, only on the basis of investigation and evidence collected in the course thereof, the complaint case registered on the protest petition of the first informant, cannot be quashed. 5. From the perusal of the record, factual submissions by both the counsels are substantiated and only question to be examined by the Court is that at the time of passing the summoning order whether the court has committed any illegality or it has reason to believe that prosecution was malicious or malafide. 6. After going through the protest petition, it transpires that present applicant is an influential person, a fact substantiated from the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that he is village Pradhan. 7.On behalf of the first informant, probity of the investigation has been challenged. 8.In view of these averments, I think summoning order was passed after due application of mind because probity of investigation was disputed. The evidence collected by the investigating officer cannot be made the basis to hold that prosecution is malicious. 9.Hence, the petition is dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.06.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS.VIJAY LAKSHMI, J. Application U/s 482 No.- 19403 Of 2016 Danish ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Syed Irfan Ali Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A Criminal law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Inherent jurisdiction - Quashing of order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. - Encroachment on public road - Removal of public nuisance - Shop obstructing public way - Challani report - Spot inspection - Notice refused - Alternative passage - Pending civil suit - Criminal Revision dismissed - No ground to interfere - Time granted to remove shop.