Dismissed

Asif Khan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2020A482/17121/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge rejected the application to quash the charge sheet and criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that prima facie offence was disclosed. Applicants directed to surrender and apply for bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of charge sheet and entire proceedings refused. Applicants directed to surrender and apply for bail for expeditious consideration.

Asif Khan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17121 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Asif Khan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

The learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the the impugned charge-sheet dated 13.8.2019 aong with cognizance order dated 17.12.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras in case No.1 3972 of 2019(CNR No.UPHT04007512-2019), State Vs. Asif Khan & others as well as entire proceedings of Case No.3972 of 2019(CNR No.UPHT04007512-2019), State Vs. Asif Khan & others, arising out of Case Crime No.235 of 2018, under Sections 316, 376D, 377, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Chandpa, District Hathras, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.

¶8

Per contra, the learned AGA has contended that from the allegations made in the FIR prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. The innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at the pre trial stage. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence.

¶9

From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicant.

¶10

At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases: - (i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR

¶11

1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283.

¶12

From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.

¶13

The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing of summoning order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused. There is no merit in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The applicant has ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.

¶14

However, the applicants are directed to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail. In the event the applicants surrender and apply for bail before the court below, the prayer for bail shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the Public Prosecutor.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 15.12.2020

¶17

Asif Khan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asif Khan 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

Dr. Swamideen Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Rajpoot @ Babloo Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Bahadur (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Yogesh Vs State of Up

Ram Singh Vs State of Up and Another