Dismissed

Manjeet Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2021A482/5228/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the charge sheet and cognizance order, the Single Judge held that the petition involved disputed questions of fact and testimonial evaluation, which are beyond the scope of this court's inherent jurisdiction. Consequently, the prayer for quashing was refused, and permission was granted for the applicant to seek discharge before the trial

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of charge sheet and cognizance order dismissed. Permission granted for accused to approach trial court for discharge.

Manjeet Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5228 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Manjeet Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Charan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Charan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant through video conference, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 11.12.2019 as well as its cognizance order dated 20.12.2019 in Special Case No. 121P/2019 (State Vs. Shiv Singh & Ors.;) arising out of Case Crime No. 623 of 2019, under Section 120B/354 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station-Auraiya, District-Auraiya.

¶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

¶10

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.

¶11

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 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

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶15

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶16

Order Date :- 13.7.2021 SA

Manjeet Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjeet Kumar 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

Smt. Kritika Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajesh Kuamr and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lakhan Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Mahtab Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanhaiyalal Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another