Allegations With A Motive To Wreaking Vengeance: Allahabad High Court Quashes Case Against Advocate And Doctor
The Allahabad High Court allowed an Application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the Orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
The Allahabad High Court has quashed a case against an Advocate and Doctor, saying that the allegations against them are with a motive to wreaking vengeance.
The Lucknow Bench was deciding an Application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to quash the Orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
A Single Bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh observed, “So far as the present case is concerned, the background of the circumstances indicates that the allegations levelled in the first information report, seem to be with a motive to wreaking vengeance and malafide.”
Advocate Sanjay Kumar Srivastava appeared for the Applicants while AGA Nirmal Kumar Pandey appeared for the Opposite Parties.
Brief Facts
An FIR was lodged in 2007 regarding the incident allegedly committed. It was alleged that the Applicant No. 2 (doctor) conducted an operation in a careless and negligent manner whereupon the malignancy was developed in the body of the Opposite Party (Informant). It was further alleged that when the Informant was sitting on ‘Dharna’ for compensation and was returning from the lavatory, both the Applicants (accused) hit her with a motorcycle with an intention to kill her.
They also allegedly threatened her to quit ‘Dharna’ or to face dire consequences as a result whereof she fell down on her left elbow whereafter the people lifted her and she went under treatment. Her left elbow was found fractured and that was plastered for six weeks. Resultantly, a case was registered against the Applicants under Sections 325 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Registry reported while mentioning that as per the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), the Opposite Party died while suffering with cancer.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “It is trite law that it would not only be sufficient for the court to look into the averments made in the first information report/complaint alone to find out whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed, but, the court owes a duty to look into the other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and if it is required, the court with due care and caution, would try to read in between the lines.”
The Court noted that the material, which is relied upon by the Applicants/accused persons, is sound and reasonable and the material, which is placed, would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis.
“Further, even the prosecution has not refuted the specific pleadings and grounds raised for quashing of the criminal proceedings against the applicants in the Counter Affidavit and therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the trial would result in a gross abuse of process of the law and would not serve the ends of justice”, it added.
The Court, therefore, concluded that there is sufficient ground for quashing of the impugned summoning order as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the case.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Application and quashed the proceedings against the accused persons.
Cause Title- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru Home Secy. Annexe Bhawan Lucknow and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:19831)
