Disposed

Abdul Gani v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2018A482/40096/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash non-bailable warrant and consequential orders. The court held that the case did not warrant interference as no manifest injustice was shown. An undertaking was recorded allowing the applicant to appear before the court below by a specified date. The application was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Permitted to appear before the court below on or before 15 December 2018; no coercive action to be taken in the interim. Application disposed of.

Abdul Gani Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40096 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Abdul Gani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Tiwari,Baleshwar Chaturvedi 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 non-bailable warrant dated 18.05.2017 as well as the consequential orders passed by the court below in Case No. 604 of 2016 (State Vs. Abdul Gani), arising out of Case Crime No. 620 of 2015, under Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughtering Act and 11 Animal Cruelty Act Police StationDharamsinghwa, District- Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant 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 charge-sheet 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

¶10

stage. Even on repeated query being made, learned counsel for the applicant 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 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

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence is made out from the prosecution version and, therefore, he deserves not to be harassed my means of criminal proceedings and in this regard he has taken pleas and grounds raised in this application and also the documents appended therewith.

¶12

It is well settled that at initial stage of proceedings, this Court cannot examine the facts and evidence so as to arrive at the conclusion that the case is not made out and, therefore, I do not find it to be a case worth entertaining to scuttle down the criminal proceedings which are otherwise lawfully instituted.

¶13

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant may be given at least one opportunity to appear before the court below to show his bonafide to cooperate with the criminal proceedings in question.

¶14

Considering the statement made on behalf of the applicant and his undertaking, the applicant is permitted to appear on or before 15th December, 2018 before the court below and till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶15

The application, accordingly, stands disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 12.11.2018 P Kesari

Abdul Gani v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Gani 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

Rama Kant Vs Chhotey Lal and Others

Vindhyachal and Others Vs D.D.C. and Others

Rajnesh Vs Assistant Consolidation Officer and Anr.

Pawan Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Natthu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another