RASHMI JAIN Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(SC)-2014-1-84
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
January 13,2014
RASHMI JAIN
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL [REFERRED TO]R P KAPUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. P P SHARMA IAS [REFERRED TO]
ZANDU PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD VS. SHARAFUL HAQUE [REFERRED TO]
ANIL MAHAJAN VS. BHOR INDUSTRIES LTD [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
C.VENUGOPAL REDDY VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(TLNG)-2020-1-1] [REFERRED TO]KESHAV UPADHYAY VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-4-89] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR MALHOTRA AND ANOTHER VS. POONAM [LAWS(P&H)-2018-4-234] [REFERRED TO]
NAVEEEN SACHDEVA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2019-4-26] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL DUDHA BHAI KANERIA S/O SHRI DUDHA BHAI KANERIA DIRECTOR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-5-177] [REFERRED TO]
P. MALLESH VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2020-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
GAGAN AERO SPACE LTD VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-4-129] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDER KANT VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2019-8-155] [REFERRED TO]
KALLAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-338] [REFERRED TO]
SUN PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2016-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
SUNEEL GALGOTIA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
RITABEN NARESHBHAI DESAI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-9-193] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-12-88] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL JOLLY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-7-202] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH THAKUR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-269] [REFERRED TO]
SMTI. CHONGTHAM ONGBI LOIDANG DEVI VS. SHRI CHONGTHAM GUNA SINGH [LAWS(MANIP)-2016-9-15] [REFERRED]
AB. RASHID LONE VS. STATE OF J&K AND ANR. [LAWS(J&K)-2017-3-56] [REFERRED TO]
SIJO JOHN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2018-8-166] [REFERRED TO]
MD ADIL @ ADIL AHMAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-5-195] [REFERRED TO]
S SESHACHALA SAI VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-1-115] [REFERRED TO]
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, UCO BANK VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-4-73] [REFERRED TO]
SIDHESHWAR SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-4-161] [REFERRED TO]
INDU DALMIA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
SACHIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-10-43] [REFERRED TO]
SAADAT HUSAIN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-230] [REFERRED TO]
ANOOP SINGH VS. HANUMAN SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2019-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2019-4-231] [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN SAW VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-1-216] [REFERRED TO]
MANPREET DOAD VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND VARDHAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-199] [REFERRED TO]
KORUVADA NEGESWARA RAO AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF A.P., REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2018-6-88] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH AGARWAL VS. RAM AVATAR BANSAL [LAWS(GAU)-2019-3-171] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI DEVI SINGHAL VS. KAILASH SINGHAL [LAWS(MPH)-2015-10-61] [REFERRED TO]
RANDHIR SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-154] [REFERRED TO]
INTERNATIONAL ADVANCED RESEARCH CENTRE FOR POWDER METALLURGY AND NEW MATERIALS (ARCI) AND ORS. VS. NIMRA CERGLASS TECHNICS (P) LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
NITU AGARWAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-8-91] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYA LAKSHMI PATIL VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-2-435] [REFERRED TO]
AHTESHAMUDIN ALIAS BHURIYO NAZIMUDIN KAZI & 2 VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-10-320] [REFERRED]
DIPAL JAYESH SHUKLA & 1 VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 [LAWS(GJH)-2018-1-364] [REFERRED TO]
GOLDEN TREES PLANTATION LTD. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-480] [REFERRED TO]
CH LAXMINARAYANA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2017-6-67] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH SHESHMALJI JAIN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-1-919] [REFERRED TO]
SAJ VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2016-7-198] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV JAGDISHCHANDRA KHANDELWAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-608] [REFERRED TO]
SHALINI SANJAY MISHRA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-6-76] [REFERRED TO]
K. RATNA PRABHA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2017-6-42] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave Granted. This Appeal, By Special Leave, Has Been Filed By The Appellant Impugning The Order Passed By The High Court In Rashmi Jain V. State Of U.P, Filed Under Section 482 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (For Short "Crpc").
(2.)By The Impugned Order, The High Court Has Declined To Quash The Proceedings Initiated Against The Appellant On The Ground That All The Submissions Relate To Disputed Questions Of Fact Which Cannot Be Adjudicated Upon By The Court Under Section 482 Crpc. It Is Further Observed That, At This Stage, Only Prima Facie Case Is To Be Seen In The Light Of The Law Laid Down By The Supreme Court In A Number Of Judgments, Namely, R.P Kapur V. State Of Punjab, 1960 CrLJ 1239, State Of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335, State Of Bihar V. P.P Sharma, 1992 Supp1 SCC 222 And Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. V. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, 2005 1 SCC 122. Relying Upon The Aforesaid Judgments, But Without Culling Out The Ratio Of Any Of The Aforesaid Judgments, It Has Been Observed By The High Court That The Defence Of The Accused Cannot Be Considered At This Stage. It Has Further Been Observed That "The Applicants Have Got Right Of Discharge Under Sections 239, 245(2) Or 227/228 Crpc, As The Case May Be Through A Proper Application For The Said Purpose And The Accused Persons Are Free To Take All The Submissions In The Said Discharge Application Before The Trial Court."
(3.)We Have Heard The Learned Counsel For The Parties At Length. Ms Indu Malhotra, Learned Senior Counsel Appearing For The Appellant, Has Submitted That The High Court Has Dismissed The Petition For Quashing Of The Proceedings Without Actually Considering The Factual Position. She Points Out That The Appellant And Respondent 2 Complainant Had Entered Into A Business Transaction. Respondent 2 Complainant Had Approached The Appellant, Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Sale And Distribution Of Handicrafts Including Indigenous Artificial Jewellery, With A Proposal To Provide Wooden Bracelets. Respondent 2 Showed Some Samples To The Appellant, From Amongst Which The Appellant Picked One And Placed An Order For 9693 Pieces Of Wooden Bracelets With The Respondent. The Appellant Also Admittedly Made An Advance Payment Of Rs 1 Lakh By Cheque To The Respondent.
(2.)By The Impugned Order, The High Court Has Declined To Quash The Proceedings Initiated Against The Appellant On The Ground That All The Submissions Relate To Disputed Questions Of Fact Which Cannot Be Adjudicated Upon By The Court Under Section 482 Crpc. It Is Further Observed That, At This Stage, Only Prima Facie Case Is To Be Seen In The Light Of The Law Laid Down By The Supreme Court In A Number Of Judgments, Namely, R.P Kapur V. State Of Punjab, 1960 CrLJ 1239, State Of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335, State Of Bihar V. P.P Sharma, 1992 Supp1 SCC 222 And Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. V. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, 2005 1 SCC 122. Relying Upon The Aforesaid Judgments, But Without Culling Out The Ratio Of Any Of The Aforesaid Judgments, It Has Been Observed By The High Court That The Defence Of The Accused Cannot Be Considered At This Stage. It Has Further Been Observed That "The Applicants Have Got Right Of Discharge Under Sections 239, 245(2) Or 227/228 Crpc, As The Case May Be Through A Proper Application For The Said Purpose And The Accused Persons Are Free To Take All The Submissions In The Said Discharge Application Before The Trial Court."
(3.)We Have Heard The Learned Counsel For The Parties At Length. Ms Indu Malhotra, Learned Senior Counsel Appearing For The Appellant, Has Submitted That The High Court Has Dismissed The Petition For Quashing Of The Proceedings Without Actually Considering The Factual Position. She Points Out That The Appellant And Respondent 2 Complainant Had Entered Into A Business Transaction. Respondent 2 Complainant Had Approached The Appellant, Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Sale And Distribution Of Handicrafts Including Indigenous Artificial Jewellery, With A Proposal To Provide Wooden Bracelets. Respondent 2 Showed Some Samples To The Appellant, From Amongst Which The Appellant Picked One And Placed An Order For 9693 Pieces Of Wooden Bracelets With The Respondent. The Appellant Also Admittedly Made An Advance Payment Of Rs 1 Lakh By Cheque To The Respondent.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.