Dismissed

Smt.Sabana v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2022A482/1167/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Proceedings regarding a chargesheet and cognizance order under Section 195 Cr.P.C. arising from discrepancies in the applicant's statement were considered. The court rejected the application to quash the proceedings, citing minor irregularities, but directed that bail be granted pending consideration by the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash dismissed; direction to lower court to consider bail prayer.

Smt.Sabana Vs State of U.P and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1167 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt.Sabana Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of Smt. Sabana to quash / set aside the chargesheet dated 17.8.2019 arising out of case crime no. 208 of 2018, under section 195 I.P.C. police station Sishgarh District Bareilly and cognizance order dated 18.1.2020 as well as entire proceeding of case no. 171 of 2020, State Vs. Smt. Sabana pending before the Judicial Magistrate Bahedi, Bareilly.

¶6

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report was registered as case crime no. 151 of 2018 by Smt. Sabana against the three accused persons named Yakoob, Jubair and Saeed Ali under sections 452, 376D, 504 and 506 I.P.C. In her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. she has supported the version of the first information report but in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. there were some discrepancies and on the basis of those discrepancies the Investigating Officer has initiated the present proceedings in case crime no. 208 of 2018 under section 195 Cr.P.C.

¶7

It is contended that on the basis of same statement, the chargesheet has been submitted against the applicant. Moreover, in cognizance order the court has not mentioned the section under which section the cognizance has been taken. It cannot be said that the concerned Magistrate has applied his judicial mind in passing the impugned summoning order. The cognizance is bad in the eyes of law. Hence, the prayer is made.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has also supported the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that proceeding for the offence under Section 195 I.P.C. can be initiated only by the Court and not by the Investigating Officer and that too if the person has given false statement in the court.

¶9

As per record, the present applicant got registered a first information report under section 452, 376D, 504 and 506 I.P.C. against three persons. In her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. she supported the version of the first information report but in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated before the Court that not all the three accused persons rather only Jubair entered her house. Yakoob and Shaeed were not there. She has stated that she had quarrel with them earlier so she named all the three Yakoob and Shaeed and Jubair. Jubair tried to molest her but when the children woke up the accused Jubair ran away though he had abused and given threat to her. On the basis of this statement of her the charge-sheet only against one accused Jubair that too

¶10

under section 452, 504, 506 and 354 I.P.C. was submitted by the Investigating Officer and simultaneously the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet against the present applicant under section 195 I.P.C. Though it is claimed that these proceedings can be initiated only by the court but the section 195 I.P.C. nowhere discloses that only the evidence in the court can be challenged under this section rather the words used in the section are that "whoever gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause any person to be convicted of an offence and the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. is recorded by the Magistrate, in my opinion, the Magistrate is regarded as the Court. Hence there is no force in the arguments advanced by the learned A.G.A. as well as the counsel for the applicant. So far as the contention regarding the submission of the chargesheet is concerned now the charge-sheet has been submitted against only one person that too in minor offence.

¶11

It is true that in the cognizance order 'Section' in which cognizance is being taken has not been mentioned by the court concerned but in the cognizance order it is very clearly mentioned that the cognizance has been taken on the basis of charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer and the specific section is very well mentioned in the charge-sheet. In my opinion, it can only be said to be a mere irregularity. On the basis of this argument the cognizance order cannot be set aside. By the impugned statement the applicant has withdrawn her accusation under section 376D I.P.C. against all the three accused persons mentioned in the first information report. In my opinion, there is no ground to set aside or quash the proceedings of the cahrgesheet, cognizance order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. The prayer for quashing the same is rejected.

¶12

However, it is provided that if the applicant applies for bail before the court below, her prayer for bail be considered and decided in view of the law laid down in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2021)10 SCC 773 and Brahm Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2016 (95) ACC 950 .

¶13

With the aforesaid direction, the present application is disposed of finally.

¶14

Order Date :- 4.2.2022 Gss

¶15

Digitally signed by GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA Date: 2022.02.08 14:26:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt.Sabana v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Sabana 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashi Bhushan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bachcha Sahani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rizwan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rameshchandra Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr Sudhir Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Komal Kishore Singh Vs State of U.P and 3 Others