Premanand Garg and 4 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC10 May 2019A482/18123/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Quashing Petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to quash orders framing charge. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that such challenges are entertainable only in rarest of rare cases to correct patent jurisdictional errors, none of which existed here. Consequently, the application was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 CrPC to quash the impugned orders rejecting discharge and framing charge was rejected.

Premanand Garg and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18123 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Premanand Garg And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the impugned orders dated 06.12.2018 and 22.12.2018 passed by XIXth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, in S.T. No. 90 of 2009 (Vinod Sharma v. Premanand Garg and others), under Sections 364A, 511, 342, 323, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station - Barhan, District - Agra. Vide order dated 06.12.2018, application of the applicant for discharge was rejected and vide order dated 22.12.2018, charge under Sections 364A, 511, 342/34, 506 of I.P.C. has been framed against the applicants.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that from the perusal of complaint, no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶8

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 310 has observed as follows:-

¶9

" ..............38. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter. "

¶10

Accordingly, there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned orders passed by the trial court.

¶11

In result, the instant application stands rejected .

¶12

Order Date :- 10.5.2019 I. Batabyal

Premanand Garg and 4 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premanand Garg and 4 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

Ramesh and 04 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Abhishek @ Abhishek Mohan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Badri Prasad and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Kumar and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Tara Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another