Disposed

Ram Sajivan and Ors. v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Department Civil Secretary U.P. Lucknow and Anr.

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2022/368/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a summoning order, the court observed that the applicants would prefer to surrender and file a bail application. The court held that given Supreme Court mandates, no specific directions are needed as the lower court must decide bail applications expeditiously in accordance with law. The application was disposed of with a direction to

What did the court decide?

Application disposed off with direction that no specific order is needed as existing Supreme Court guidelines mandate expedient disposal of bail applications by the lower court.

Ram Sajivan and Ors. Vs State of U.P. through Principal… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 35

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 368 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Sajivan And Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home Department Civil Secretary U.P. Lucknow And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Arjun Kumar Kaushal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have sought quashing of the summoning order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Court No. 28, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 82203/2021 (State vs. Guddu and others) arising out of case Crime No. 0258/2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 336, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Nagram, District Lucknow on the ground that the applicants have been implicated falsely.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid prayer and has submitted that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot go into the correctness of the allegations made against the applicant and has only to examine whether on the basis of the allegations made and material collected during investigation, the offences are made out against the applicant or not.

¶8

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 has laid down certain guidelines for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and after laying down the principles for exercise of the discretionary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Bhajan Lal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court proceeded to add a word of caution in the following words: -

¶9

"103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."

¶10

The expression "rarest of rare cases" used by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal has been explained in Google India (P) Ltd. v. Visaka Industries, (2020) 4 SCC 162 in the following words: -

¶11

"43. As to what is the scope of the expression "rarest of rare cases" indicated in para 103, we may only refer to the judgment of this Court in Jeffrey J. Diermeier v. State of W.B.,(2010) 6 SCC 243 wherein the law laid down by a Bench of three Judges in Som Mittal (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008) 3 SCC 574 has been referred to : (Jeffrey J. Diermeier case(2010) 6 SCC 243, SCC p. 252, para 23)

¶12

"23. The purport of the expression "rarest of rare cases", to which reference was made by Shri Venugopal, has been explained recently in Som Mittal (2) v. State of Karnataka(2008) 3 SCC 574. Speaking for a Bench of three Judges, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice said : (SCC pp. 580-81, para 9)

¶13

''9. When the words "rarest of rare cases" are used after the words "sparingly and with circumspection" while describing the scope of Section 482, those words merely emphasise and reiterate what is intended to be conveyed by the words "sparingly and with circumspection". They mean that the power under Section 482 to quash proceedings should not be used mechanically or routinely, but with care and caution, only when a clear case for quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The expression "rarest of rare cases" is not used in the sense in which it is used with reference to punishment for offences under Section 302 IPC, but to emphasise that the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR or criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and with circumspection.'"

¶14

In N. Soundaram v. P.K. Pounraj, (2014) 10 SCC 616 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to explain the principles governing exercise of power under Section 482 in the following manner: -

¶15

"13. It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. [See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.] The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting

¶16

anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. [See MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi (1983) 1 SCC 1.] An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. [See Vinod Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora (2013) 10 SCC 581.]

¶17

In Kaptan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others; (2021) 9 SCC 35 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that while deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducing the trial.

¶18

Confronted with the aforesaid legal position, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press this application on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that applicants may be permitted to surrender and move an application, before the court concerned seeking bail and suitable directions may be issued that same may be heard and decided expeditiously, in accordance to law.

¶19

A seven judges Bench of this Court in the case of " Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.; 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.; 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) and in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.; MANU/SC/0274/2017 have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail application should be decided, expeditiously.

¶20

Further, as the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; (2021) 10 SCC 773 has laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific directions need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex Court.

¶21

It is trite to say that any order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all Courts and there is no need for issuance of any separate direction to the Court below to follow the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In case, the applicant surrenders and moves an application for bail, the same shall be considered by the learned Court below, expeditiously, in

¶22

accordance with law.

¶23

The application is disposed off .

¶24

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad and the computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 2.2.2022 Santosh/-

¶27

Digitally signed by SUBHASH VIDYARTHI Date: 2022.02.02 14:15:50 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Sajivan and Ors. v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Department Civil Secretary U.P. Lucknow and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sajivan and Ors. v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Department Civil Secretary U.P. Lucknow and Anr.

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

Prabhat Kumar Bajpaaye and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Civil Sectt. and Another

Mahendra Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Anr.

Mohd. Jamal Ahmad and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankur Verma alias Shanu Vs State of U.P.Thru Addl.Cheif Secy. Home Lucknow

Sudhanshu Nigam Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shabbu Vs state o fu.p.thru prin.secy. home lucknow and Anr.