Disposed

Bhagirath v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Jun 2022A482/21049/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, holding that a prima facie offence was disclosed and the petitionist must face trial. The court instead directed the applicant to seek bail before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash refused; applicant directed to apply for bail before trial court within three weeks.

Bhagirath Vs State of U.P. and Another — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21049 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Bhagirath Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ambrish Kumar Kashyap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 82 of 2000 (arising out of case crime no. 15 of 2000) under Section 364 I.P.C., Police Station Jaitpur, District Agra, pending before Additional Sessions Judge (D.A.A.) Agra.

¶6

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.

¶7

Per contra, the learned AGA has contended that from the allegations made in the FIR prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. The innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at the pre trial stage. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence.

¶8

From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicant.

¶9

At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283.

¶10

From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether

¶11

uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.

¶12

The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the charge sheet/criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 82 of 2000 is refused. There is no merit in this case. The applicant has ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.

¶13

However, the applicant is directed to appear and surrender before the court below and applies for bail within three weeks from today, and his prayer for bail shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law and as per law after hearing the Public Prosecutor.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, this application stands disposed of.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.6.2022 SA

¶18

Digitally signed by SALMAN ALI Date: 2022.06.03 11:49:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhagirath v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagirath 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

Nebu Lal and Others Vs State of U.P.

Xxxxxxxx Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

'X' Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Ekta Nagar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Abdul Karim Vs State of U.P. and Another