Disposed

Manoj Shukla and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2018A482/34644/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, finding no manifest injustice. The court directed the trial court to consider the bail plea on its own merits and granted a 45-day stay on coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings left to trial court; bail to be considered on merits; no coercive steps against applicants for 45 days.

Manoj Shukla and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34644 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Shukla And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Sahu Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 19.01.2018 as well as entire criminal proceedings in S.S.T. No. 98 of 2018 under Sections 354-A(1), 452, 323, 325, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)10 of SC/ ST Act, Police Station- Baraur, District- Kanpur Dehat, pending in the court of A.D.J./ Special Judge SC/ ST Act, Kanpur Dehat.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') is sought to be invoked for quashment of the criminal proceedings. The chargesheet upon which the court below has already taken cognizance and judicial process is on as per the procedure, is being questioned on various grounds and pleas taken in the affidavit filed in support of the miscellaneous application.

¶8

It is well settled that power vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the object of advancement of the justice or in other words to secure the ends of justice. It is only where the judicial process is found to have been converted into instrument of oppression or harassment, this Court will step in to arrest manifest injustice. While malicious or malafide institution of proceedings would be cases warranting inherent exercise of power, the court has to be cautious that the powers should not invade area set apart for specific powers conferred under Cr.P.C. ( Vinit Kumar and others v. State of U.P. 2017 (13) SCC 369 ).

¶9

Testing the facts of the instant case on the above set of the principles, I do not find that this case warrants any interference with the proceedings in question at this stage. Even on repeated query being made, learned counsel for the applicants could not point out any manifest injustice has occurred and that is likely to result in miscarriage of justice. The allegation in the first information report that have been found, prima facie, correct after investigation and have resulted in the charge-sheet cannot

¶10

be said as not disclosing of an offence to hold that charge-sheet is ill founded. It is well settled that the High Court cannot convert itself into a trial court and dwell into the disputed questions of fact. ( Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. (2014) 7 SCC 215 ). In any case this is not a stage to conduct microscopic examination of facts and evidence to thwart the prosecution case.

¶11

Thus, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for at this stage of the proceedings in question.

¶12

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants requests that their plea for bail may be accepted and appropriate directions may be issued to the court below in that regard.

¶13

I do not see that any specific direction is needed to guide the discretion of Court to grant bail or to refuse it and no direction is equally needed to give any time frame as no exceptional circumstance has been referred to in the present facts of the case.

¶14

However, their plea for consideration of bail has been made with an undertaking that they shall appear before the court below within 45 days from today to show his genuineness on one hand and bonafide to co-operate with the trial on the other.

¶15

I hereby direct court concerned to consider the bail application on its own merit and dispose of the same keeping in view the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶16

In the interest of justice, it is hereby provided that keeping in view of the undertaking given on behalf of the applicants, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants for a period of 45 days from today in pursuance of the criminal proceedings in question.

¶17

This application, accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.10.2018 Atmesh

Manoj Shukla and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Shukla and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fireram and 5 Others Vs Smt. Sushila and 14 Others

Jagmindar Singh and 3 Others Vs Smt. Sushila and 14 Others

Christian Hospital Vs State of U.P. and Others

Rajesh Kumar Jain and Another Vs Sulahkul Sehkari Awas Samiti and 7 Others

Hussain Ahmad Vs Rafeeq Ahmad (Deceased) and 5 Others

Rajendra Yadav and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another