Supreme Court - Daily Orders
R S Dwivedi vs State Of Up on 29 July, 2015
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, Adarsh Kumar Goel
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).1468 OF 2013
R.S. DWIVEDI & ORS. ... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the impugned order and placed strong reliance upon the series of judgments of this Court particularly Para 33 of the judgment reported in 2013 (9) SCC 245, Paras 13 and 14 of the judgment reported Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Vinod Kumar Date: 2015.08.10 in 2015 (1) SCC 788 and , to show that the allegations 16:24:40 IST Reason: contained in the subsequent complaint lodged against these appellants are motivated and on account of the 2 dismissal of the 2nd respondent from service of the company and there is no material to substantiate the allegations. He has also drawn our attention to the internal complaint produced with Annexure P-4 wherein the appellants' names are not mentioned in the complaint whereas in the subsequent complaint on the basis of which the jurisdictional sub-inspector registered first information report (FIR) dated 14.09.2007, makes allegations with an afterthought which are motivated.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the material available on record and the rival legal submissions, we find that in the FIR there is total contradictory statements in the first complaint and the subsequent complaint with regard to the allegation of involvement of these appellants in the alleged offences. This fact itself clearly shows that the allegations made against the appellants in the FIR and the subsequent complaint are not tenable and the same are motivated. It amounts to abuse of the process of the court and is a valid and reasonable ground for quashing the criminal proceedings, as held by this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. 3 Bhajan Lal, 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335. Therefore, we feel that the appellants are entitled for quashing of the proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Allahabad in Case No. 2894 of 2012. Ordered accordingly.
The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
................J. (V. GOPALA GOWDA) ..................J. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) NEW DELHI, JULY 29, 2015 4 ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.10 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1468/2013 R S DWIVEDI & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF UP AND ANR Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for ex-parte stay and exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date : 29/07/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL For Appellant(s) Mr. Deeptakirti Verma,Adv. Ms. Aparna Iyer, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Caveator-in-person UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(VINOD KR.JHA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)