# Shailendra Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 146
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-18
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 443 of 2024
- **Bench:** Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shailendra-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51058
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161 & 482 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 498-A, 504 &
506 - - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -
Sections 3 & 4- Application u/s 482 - for
quashing the impugned order of cognizance and
order of framing charges as well as the Chargesheet - FIR - Investigation - charge-sheet -
cognizance - framing charges - after 9 years
present application - court finds that, prima
facie case is made out against the applicant and
charges
have
been
framed
against
the
applicants in year 2018 itself - therefore, after
the delay more than 9 years, this court does not
find sufficient ground to interfere in the present
case - held that, for quashing the criminal
proceeding
is
applicant
u/s
482
is
not
maintainable after considerably long period in
absence of any explanation for delay, specifically
when the charges were framed in their presence
long back except in exceptional cases -
accordingly, present application is dismissed.
(Para - 10, 11)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
may not be deleted, therefore, there is no
infirmity or illegality in the order dated
23.05.2023.

14. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on record as well as having regard
to the case laws so referred by the parties,
which have been considered above, I am
also of the considered opinion that at the
time of framing charges it is incumbent
upon the trial court to make scrutiny of the
allegations and the material available on the
record inasmuch as if, prima-facie, the
material is available on record and after
perusal of the same the learned trial court is
of the opinion that such charge may be
framed, the court may very well frame
particular charge. Further, at the same time,
it is also trite law that during the course of
trial the learned trial court shall scrutinize all
the charges so framed deeply and unless and
until the charge/ charges are proved beyond
all reasonable doubts the accused persons
may not be punished under such charge/
charges. It is also needless to observe that
during the course of trial all the parties shall
be afforded an ample opportunity of hearing
to adduce their evidence and to produce the
material. Further, in the light of the dictum
of Apex Court in re: P. Kartika Lakshmi
(supra) the learned trial court has rightly
rejected the application of the petitioners
vide order dated 23.05.2023.

15. In view of the aforesaid
observations,
the
instant
petition
is
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 146
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.01.2024

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 443 of 2024

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Madan Gopal Tripathi, Atma Ram Verma,
Shivam Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161 & 482 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 498-A, 504 &
506 - - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -
Sections 3 & 4- Application u/s 482 - for
quashing the impugned order of cognizance and
order of framing charges as well as the Chargesheet - FIR - Investigation - charge-sheet -
cognizance - framing charges - after 9 years
present application - court finds that, prima
facie case is made out against the applicant and
charges
have
been
framed
against
the
applicants in year 2018 itself - therefore, after
the delay more than 9 years, this court does not
find sufficient ground to interfere in the present
case - held that, for quashing the criminal
proceeding
is
applicant
u/s
482
is
not
maintainable after considerably long period in
absence of any explanation for delay, specifically
when the charges were framed in their presence
long back except in exceptional cases -
accordingly, present application is dismissed.
(Para - 10, 11)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rajiv Thaper & ors. Vs Madan Lal Kapoor -
2013 AIR SCW 784,

2. Hasmukhlal D. Vora & anr. Vs St. of T.N.-
2022 SCC online SC 1732,

3. Prabatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai & ors. Vs The
St. of Gurj. & ors. - 2017 Vol. 9 SCC 641
1 All. Shailendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
147
4. C.B.I. Vs Aryan Singh - 2023 Live Law SC
292.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and Sri Arvind Kumar Tripathi,
learned AGA for the State and perused the
record.

2. Present application under Section
482 CrPC has been filed with the following
prayer:-

"To allow this petition by setting
aside
the
cognizance
order
dated
06/09/2014,
the
chargesheet
dated
25/05/2014 and order dated 23/06/2018
whereby Charges have been framed by
Special A.C.J.M Custom Lko, arising out of
Case Crime no 13/2014 under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C & 3/4 D.P Act P.S-
Banthra District Lucknow pending now
before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate
Custom Lucknow namely Case No.523 of
2014, State Versus Shailendra Singh and in
the interest of Justice."

3. The contention of the learned
counsel for the applicants is that from the
material collected during investigation no
case is made out against the applicants as
the allegations made are absolutely vague.
He further submitted that though the
charges have been framed on 23.06.2018,
the applicants are also released on bail in
the impugned proceedings. In support of
his case, for delayed filing of the present
application after almost about more than
nine year, he has relied upon judgement of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv
Thapar and others Vs. Madan Lal
Kapoor, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 784,
and has relied upon paragraph 22 and 23 of
the judgement in which Hon'ble Apex
Court observed that Jurisdiction of High
Court under Section 482 CrPC can be
exercised to quash the proceeding even at
the stage of issuance process or at the stage
of committal or even at the stage of
framing of charges, therefore merely filing
an application after the delay of more than
nine years will not prevent the Court from
exercising its power under Section 482
CrPC. Paragraph 22 and 23 of the
judgement are quoted hereunder:-

"22. The issue being examined in
the instant case is the jurisdiction of the
High Court under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation
of the prosecution against an accused, at
the stage of issuing process, or at the stage
of committal, or even at the stage of
framing of charges. These are all stages
before the commencement of the actual
trial. The same parameters would naturally
be available for later stages as well. The
power vested in the High Court under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages
referred to hereinabove, would have far
reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it
would
negate
the
prosecution's/complainant's case without
allowing the prosecution/complainant to
lead evidence. Such a determination must
always be rendered with caution, care and
circumspection. To invoke its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully
satisfied, that the material produced by the
accused is such, that would lead to the
conclusion, that his/their defence is based
on sound, reasonable, and indubitable
facts; the material produced is such, as
would rule out and displace the assertions
contained in the charges leveled against the
accused; and the material produced is
such, as would clearly reject and overrule
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the veracity of the allegations contained in
the
accusations
leveled
by
the
prosecution/complainant.
It
should
be
sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the
accusations
leveled
by
the
prosecution/complainant,
without
the
necessity of recording any evidence. For
this the material relied upon by the defence
should
not
have
been
refuted,
or
alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted,
being material of sterling and impeccable
quality. The material relied upon by the
accused should be such, as would persuade
a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn
the
actual
basis
of
the
accusations as false. In such a situation,
the judicial conscience of the High Court
would persuade it to exercise its power
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash
such criminal proceedings, for that would
prevent abuse of process of the court, and
secure the ends of justice.

23.
Based
on
the
factors
canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we
would delineate the following steps to
determine the veracity of a prayer for
quashing, raised by an accused by invoking
the power vested in the High Court under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C."

It is lastly submitted by the
learned counsel for the applicant that in
other proceeding under Domestic Violence
Act the stand of opposite party no. 2 is
contrary to stand taken in the impugned
proceeding.

4. Per contra learned AGA contended
that there is a delay of more than nine years
and charges have already been framed
against the applicant on 23.06.2018 and
there is no explanation for approaching this
Court after the delay of more than nine
years. Learned AGA also submitted that,
when exercising its power under Section
482 CrPC the court cannot conduct a mini
trial and only the material collected by the
Investigating agency during investigation is
to be considered and defense of the accused
cannot be considered at this stage.

5. After hearing the counsel for the
parties and on perusal of record, it is clear
that FIR was lodged against the applicants
in the year 2014 and the Statement under
Section 161 CrPC was recorded in the year
2014 itself and from the perusal of the
statement recorded under Section 161
CrPC, prima facie case is made out against
the applicant as there is specific allegations
of harassment and demand of dowry
against the applicants and the charges have
also been framed against the applicants in
the year 2018 itself and after obtaining bail
they have been participating in trial and
now after almost more than nine years they
decided
to
challenge
the
proceeding
without
any
plausible
reason
for
approaching this Court after such a long
delay.

6. So far as the judgement relied upon
by the learned counsel for the applicant is
concerned, in that case the Hon'ble Apex
Court had observed that power under
Section 482 CrPC can be exercised at any
stage of the proceeding but in those cases
where the material relied upon the accused
would rule out the charges leveled against
the accused persons and the proceeding of
trial will result in abuse of process of Court
and would not served the end of justice.
Further, from the material on record, prima
facie, case is made out against the
applicants, therefore aforesaid judgment
does not apply in the present case, nor the
argument of the counsel of the applicant or
the material available on record persuade
this court to quash the proceedings of the
case in question in exercise of its power
under Section 482 CrPC after delay of
1 All. Shivam Gupta @ Shubham @ Lavi Vs. State of U.P.
149
more than nine years. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Hasmukhlal D. Vora
& ANR. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in 2022 SCC online SC 1732 has
observed that while exercising power under
Section 482 CrPC the Court is not expected
to conduct a full-blown investigation at the
stage of a criminal complaint, however, in
such cases where the accused has been
subjected to the anxiety of a potential
initiation of criminal proceedings for such a
length of time, it is only reasonable for the
court to expect bare-minimum evidence
from the Investigating Authorities.

7. Similarly in the case of Neeharika
Infrastructure
Pvt.
Ltd
v.
State
of
Maharashtra reported in SCC Online SC
351, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that
High Court should not embark upon an
enquiry into the merits and demerits of the
allegations and quash the proceeding
without allowing the investigating agency
to complete its task and further observed
that the power under Section 482 should be
exercised only where the allegations made
in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.

8.

Similarly,
in
the
case
of
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai and
others vs The State Of Gujarat and
others reported in Vol-9 SCC 641, it was
further observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
that while the Inherent power is of wide
plenitude with no statutory limitation but it
has to be exercised in accord with the
guideline engrafted in such power viz.:

(i) to secure the ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any court.

9. Similarly in the case of C.B.I. Vs
Aryan Singh, 2023 Live Law (S.C.) 292,
Hon'ble Apex Court observed that High
Court cannot conduct "mini trial" while
executing powers under Section 482 CrPC.

10. In view of legal position
mentioned above this Court holds that
application filed under Section 482 CrPC
for quashing the criminal proceeding is not
maintainable after considerably long period
in absence of any explanation for delay,
specifically when charges were framed
against applicants in his presence long
back, except in exceptional cases which
may persuade the Court to interfere in the
interest of justice.

11. In view of the above discussion,
as well as on perusal of record it is clear
that prima facie case is made out against
the applicants and charges have been
framed against the applicants in 2018 itself.
Therefore, after the delay of more than nine
years, this Court does not find sufficient
ground to interfere in the present case.
Accordingly, the present application under
Section 482 is dismissed.

12. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 149
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 466 of 2024

Shivam Gupta @ Shubham @ Lavi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party