# Suhail Ahmad & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1447
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-27
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 470 of 2020
- **Bench:** Naheed Ara Moonis
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suhail-ahmad-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45507
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal
CodeSections 323, 504, 506 & 3(1) (Da) (Dha) of
S.C./S.T Act,- Appeal against conviction.

The legal position for quashing of the
proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be
applied
by
the
court
is
to
whether
uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie
establishes the offence and the chances of
ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful
purpose is likely to be served by allowing
criminal proceedings to be continue. The
inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. itself envisages three
circumstances
under
which
the
inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect
an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse
of the process of the court; (iii) to otherwise
secure the ends of justice. The power of High
Court is very wide but should be exercised very
cautiously to do real and substantial justice for
which the court alone exists. (Para 8)

The High Court would not embark upon an
inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Court.
The interference at the threshold of quashing
of the criminal proceedings in case in hand
cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses
prima facie commission of an offence. The
applicants have ample opportunity to raise all
the objections at the appropriate stage. (Para
9)

Application u/s 482 disposed of. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

2 All. Suhail Ahmad & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1447
(2020)02ILR A1447

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 470 of 2020

Suhail Ahmad & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Rajiv Dwivedi, Sri Vimal Chandra
Pathak

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

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal
CodeSections 323, 504, 506 & 3(1) (Da) (Dha) of
S.C./S.T Act,- Appeal against conviction.

The legal position for quashing of the
proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be
applied
by
the
court
is
to
whether
uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie
establishes the offence and the chances of
ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful
purpose is likely to be served by allowing
criminal proceedings to be continue. The
inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. itself envisages three
circumstances
under
which
the
inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect
an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse
of the process of the court; (iii) to otherwise
secure the ends of justice. The power of High
Court is very wide but should be exercised very
cautiously to do real and substantial justice for
which the court alone exists. (Para 8)

The High Court would not embark upon an
inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Court.
The interference at the threshold of quashing
of the criminal proceedings in case in hand
cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses
prima facie commission of an offence. The
applicants have ample opportunity to raise all
the objections at the appropriate stage. (Para
9)

Application u/s 482 disposed of. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-

1. Gyan Singh Vs. St. of Punj. & others 2012
(10) SCC 303,

2. R. P. Kapoor Vs. St. of Punj., AIR 1960 S.C.
866,

3. St. of Har. Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl) 426,

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

5. S. W. Palanattkar & others Vs. St.of Bihar,
2002 (44) ACC 168,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Naheed Ara
Moonis, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit filed
today on behalf of the applicants is taken
on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants, the learned AGA for the State
and perused the record.

3. The instant application has been
filed by the applicant with a prayer to
quash the proceeding pursuant to the
charge sheet dated 10.10.2017 in S.T. No.
69 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.
1244 of 2017 (State of U.P. Vs. Suhail
Ahmad) under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC
& 3(1) (Da) (Dha) of S.C./S.T Act at
Police Station Dudhara, District Sant
Kabir Nagar pending in the court of
District and Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir
Nagar.

4. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the applicants that the opposite
1448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
party
no.
2
has
lodged
the
First
Information Report against the applicants
under Section 354A, 323, 504 IPC and
Section 3(1) (Da) (Dha) S.C./S.T Act after
investigation no offence under Section
354A IPC was found and hence, the
charge sheet has been submitted against
the applicants under Section 323, 504 and
506 IPC and 3(1) (Da) (Dha) of S.C/S.T
Act whereupon the court below has taken
cognizance. The applicants are maliciously
being prosecuted as opposite party no. 1
has now filed a compromise application
dated 19.3.2019 (which has been appended
as annexure-1 to the supplementary
affidavit) and in view of the compromise
arrived at between the parties the opposite
part no 2 is not will to prosecute the
applicants. Hence the entire proceeding is
liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, the learned AGA has
contended that from the allegations made
in the FIR prima facie offence is made out
against the applicants. The innocence of
the applicant cannot be adjudged at the pre
trial stage. The offence under Sections
323, 504, 506 IPC is only compoundable
whereas the charge sheet has also been
submitted under Section 3(1) (Da) (Dha)
of SC/ST Act. The S.C./S.T Act is a
special law where there is no provision for
compounding the offence. Therefore, the
applicants do not deserve any indulgence
on the basis of the compromise between
the parties.

6. From the perusal of the materials
on record and looking into the facts and
circumstances of the case and after
considering the arguments made at the bar,
it does not appear that no offence has been
made out against the applicants. The plea
of compromise raised by the counsel for
the applicants cannot be accepted as the
compounding of offence is specified under
Section 320 (1) (2) of the Cr.P.C in respect
of specified penal offences, which are
compoundable with the permission or
without the permission of the Court. Since
SC/ST Act, 1989 is a special statute,
which has been enacted for the purpose of
protecting the dignity and integrity of the
members of the SC/ST community as such
the offences mentioned therein are not
compoundable. In Gyan Singh Vs. State
of Punjab & others 2012 (10) SCC 303 it
has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that offences punishable under
special statute are not covered by Section
320 of the Code. From the perusal of the
first information report the applicants have
used the vituperative words with cast
aspersion
to
the
respondent
no.
2
intentionally, while outraging her modesty
and assaulting her. The applicant with evil
intention touched the complainant who
belongs to S.C/S.T community, hence it
cannot be said that offence committed by
the applicants and attack upon the victim
in public view individual in nature and not
against the society. No doubt the offence
under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC is
compoundable but merely on account of
this reason that the parties have entered
into compromise, the offence under the
SC/ST Act cannot be quashed as the
offences under the special statutes are not
covered by Section 320 Cr.P.C.

7. At the stage of issuing cognizance
or issuing process the court below is not
expected to examine and assess in detail
the material placed on record, only this has
to be seen whether prima facie cognizable
offence is disclosed or not. The Apex
Court has also laid down the guidelines
where the criminal proceedings could be
interfered and quashed in exercise of its
power by the High Court in the following
2 All. Idrish & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1449
cases:- (i) R. P. Kapoor Vs. State of
Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC(Crl)
426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma,
1992 SCC (Crl) 192.

8. From the aforesaid decisions the
Apex Court has settled the legal position
for quashing of the proceedings at the
initial stage. The test to be applied by the
court
is
to
whether
uncontroverted
allegation as made prima facie establishes
the offence and the chances of ultimate
conviction is bleak and no useful purpose
is likely to be served by allowing criminal
proceedings to be continue. In S. W.
Palanattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar,
2002(44) ACC 168, it has been held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, that quashing of the
criminal proceedings is an exception than
a rule. The inherent powers of the High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. itself
envisages three circumstances under which
the
inherent
jurisdiction
may
be
exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under
the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of the court; (iii) to otherwise
secure the ends of justice. The power of
High Court is very wide but should be
exercised very cautiously to do real and
substantial justice for which the court
alone exists.

9. The High Court would not embark
upon an inquiry as it is the function of the
Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the
threshold of quashing of the criminal
proceedings in case in hand cannot be said
to be exceptional as it discloses prima
facie commission of an offence. In the
result,
the
prayer
for
quashing
of
proceeding is refused. There is no merit in
this application filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., thus the same is accordingly
dismissed. The applicants have ample
opportunity to raise all the objections at
the appropriate stage.

10. However, the applicants are
directed to appear and surrender before the
court below and apply for bail within a
period of thirty days from today, the
prayer for bail shall be considered
expeditiously in accordance with law after
hearing the Public Prosecutor.

11. In case the applicants fail to
surrender within the stipulated period the
court below shall take appropriate action
against him.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1449

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 599 of 2012

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Satyam Narayan, Sri Adil Jamal, Sri
Apurva Hajela

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri S.P. Mishra, Sri V.K. Jaiswal

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973- Section 482- When earlier
application u/s 482 Cr.Pc was rejected while
granting an opportunity for moving a Discharge
Application before Trial court at appropriate
stage, means there was no ground for any
indulgence,
under
exercise
of
inherent
jurisdiction, u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.
Once relief for quashing of the chargesheet as
well as entire proceeding was declined by the
High Court in the previous Criminal Application,