High Court of Judicature at Allahabad order: APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 5744 of 2015 at Allahabad : Parsadi Lal And 3 Others Vs. State Of U.P. & Another


Allahabad: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has issued the following order:


Court No. - 50

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5744 of 2015

Applicant :- Parsadi Lal And 3 Others

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Ramendra Bhushan Shukla

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of impugned order dated 31.10.2014 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No.2, Bareilly, as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No.327 of 2013, under Sections 323, 504, 427, 354 I.P.C., Police Station Bhojipur, District� Bareilly, pending in the court of A.C.J.M, Court No.2, Bareilly.

Heard applicants' counsel and learned AGA.

Entire record has been perused.

All the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.

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. 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.

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. In the case of Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 the Apex Court had observed as follows:

The courts have also pointed out in these cases that what the magistrate has to see is whether there is evidence in support of the allegations of the complainant and not whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a conviction. The learned Judges is some of these cases have been at pains to observe that an enquiry under Section 202 is not to be likened to a trial which can only take place after process is issued, and that there can be only one trial. No doubt, as stated in sub-section (1) of Section 202 itself, the object of the enquiry is to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint, but the magistrate making the enquiry has to do this only with reference to the intrinsic quality of the statements made before him at...

To continue reading