Dismissed

Lokendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2020A482/873/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash the trial court's order dismissing an accused's prayer for CBI investigation. The single-judge bench, noting the trial was advanced, dismissed the application, finding no legal irregularity.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dated 04.12.2019 is dismissed as it lacks merit.

Lokendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 873 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Lokendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- D.M.Tripathi,Vinod Prakash Srivastava (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Joint Vakalatnama filed by Sri Mohd. Rashid, Advocate and Sri Abhinav Gaur, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Vinod Prakash Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri D.M. Tripathi, learned Counsel for applicant, learned AGA for State, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vibhu Rai, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant for quashing the order dated 04.12.2019 passed by Additional District Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Baghpat in Session Trial No. 151 of 2017, State versus Karamveer and others, (Crime No.73 of 2017), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 34 IPC, Police Station Khekra, District Baghpat pending in the Court of Additional District Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Baghpat.

¶8

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case for harassment and humiliation due to ulterior motive. He committed no offence. Prosecution story is false and fake. Investigation made by Investigating Officer was defective. On the application of one accused and on the direction of Human Right Commission, investigation was transferred to CB CID which was stayed by Hon'ble High Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.26787 of 2018 although it was not in operation. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for applicant that in view of order dated 24.09.2019 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1616 of 2019, application No.168-B has been moved by accused persons before the trial Court challenging the investigation of the case with request that investigation may be conducted CBI or any other independent agency. It is further submitted that Application No.168-B of accused-applicant has been dismissed by trial Court by order dated 04.12.2019 which is impugned in the present application.

¶9

On the other hand, submissions advanced by learned Senior Counsel for applicant have been refuted by learned Counsel for opposite parties by submitting that in the present case crime no.73 of

¶10

2017 by order dated 13.08.2018 passed by SP Meerut investigation was transferred to CB-CID UP Lucknow. There against Surendra Singh filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.26787 of 2018 before Hon'ble High Court in which order of SP has been stayed. It is further submitted that against the bail order of accused Rohtash passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1715 of 2019, Informant Surendra Singh filed Criminal Appeal No.1616 of 2019 before Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been allowed vide order dated 24.09.2019 setting aside impugned judgement and order dated 31.07.2019 granting bail of accused Rohtash.

¶11

Evidently Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding the Criminal Appeal No.1616 of 2019 directed the trial Court to ensure that trial is completed expeditiously and not later than three months from the date of order. Prosecution undertakes to extend full cooperation to trial Court for early disposal of trial. Paragraph Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 of the said judgement read as under:-

¶12

"7. We direct the trial Court to ensure that the trial is completed expeditiously and not later than three months from today. The prosecution undertakes to extend full cooperation to trial Court for early disposal of the trial.

¶13

8. During the course of hearing counsel for the appellant has produced a copy of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.26787 of 2018 filed by the complainant-appellant before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the communication-cum-order dated 13.08.2018 issued by the Superintendent of Police (Meerut), State of Uttar Pradesh (Annexure No.23 to the Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.26787/2018). The said paper book is taken on record.

¶14

9. The stated communication dated 13.08.2018 refers to some observation made by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) about the need to transfer the investigation of Crime Case No.73 of 2017 to some other investigating agency.

¶15

10. It is not in dispute that the charge-sheet has already been filed by the Investigating Officer. Not only that, the trial has commenced and almost six witnesses have been examined in the trial thus far. At this stage, the question of acting upon the observation of NHRC or for that matter the communication issued by the Superintendent of Police (Meerut) dated 13.08.2018 does not arise. If any party has grievance about the investigation already undertaken by the Investigating Officer, it will be open to the concerned party to move the trial Court for appropriate relief, if so advised. That prayer be dealt with by the trial Court in accordance

¶16

with law. We are not expressing any opinion regarding the correctness of that plea."

¶17

Since impugned order reveals that eleven witnesses have been examined thus far and trial is at last stage and in view of order of Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1616 of 2019 trial is to be completed within three months form 24.10.2019. Investigation of the case by any other agency is not proper at this stage.

¶18

It appears that applicant is adopting a lingering tactic in disposal of case and he does not want to get it decided and one and other reasons he wants to linger the case.

¶19

In my view, present matter does not fall under any of the circumstances as mentioned in the paragraph no.102 of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 426.

¶20

In view of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any legal or otherwise irregularity in the order passed by trial Court.

¶21

Application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.1.2020 I.A.Siddiqui

Lokendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokendra Singh 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

Shiv Bahadur Yadav Alias Lalu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ravindra Kumar Tomar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gyan Singh Lodhi Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Shivpratap Singh @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Waseem and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another