Dismissed

Shamsul HUDA Siddiqui v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2021A482/10042/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused the applicant's application to quash criminal proceedings and charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. holding that the matter involves disputed questions of fact suitable for trial court adjudication. Permission to move for discharge in lower court was granted.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash refused; permission to approach lower court for discharge granted.

Shamsul HUDA Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10042 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Shamsul Huda Siddiqui Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant through video conferencing as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.6397 of 2019 and charge sheet no.37 of 2014 dated 1.12.2014 arising out of case crime no.43 of 2014 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 295 IPC P.S. Naugarh District Chandauli pending in the court of CJM Chandauli as well as summoning order dated 11.01.2019 passed by CJM Chandauli in Case No.6397 of 2019 arising out of case crime no.43 of 2014 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 295 IPC P.S. Naugarh District Chandauli.

¶7

All the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. In the process of invoking its inherent jurisdiction, this court cannot be persuaded to have a pre trial before the actual trial begins. The submissions made by the learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case.

¶8

The quashing of the charge sheet and the entire proceedings can also be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and also in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 make the position of law in this regard clear.

¶9

In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Apex Court which might justify the quashing of charge sheet or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The court below has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.

¶10

As requested, the permission to appear before the concerned lower court within a period of three weeks from today and move an application claiming discharge is granted to the accused on behalf of whom this

¶11

application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits in accordance with law within a period which shall not exceed a period of two months from today.

¶12

It is clarified that if this order is not availed by the accused within the stipulated period of time no application for extension of time shall be entertained and the court below is at liberty to proceed against the applicant in accordance with law.

¶13

With the above observations, this application stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 9.7.2021 SP

Shamsul HUDA Siddiqui v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamsul HUDA Siddiqui 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

Sushil Kumar @ Mantu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Sarita and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar Dubey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Sabir Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pankaj Chaturvedi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyabhan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another