Akil Islam @ Tabrez Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

Akil Islam @ Tabrez Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; the prayer for quashing the proceedings, cognizance order dated 30.7.2021 and charge-sheet no. 1 of 2021 was refused. Direction issued that if the applicant appears before the court below and applies for bail, the bail application shall be considered and decided in the light of Satender Kumar Antil (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Brahm Singh 2016 (95) ACC 950.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 241 of 2021 arising out of case crime no. 801 of 2020, the cognizance order dated 30.7.2021 and charge-sheet no. 1 of 2021 against the applicant ought to be quashed, the applicant having not been named in the first information report or in the complainant's statement and having been implicated, as contended, merely on the basis of his presence on the spot.

Court's answer

The factual matter cannot be looked into by this court at this stage; the contents of the first information report are not open to factual scrutiny in a quashing petition.

Ratio / Principle

On a reading of the first information report it cannot be said that the person who took the complainant on the false pretext is not the present accused, since his name came during investigation.

Key takeaways

No ground is made out to quash the proceedings of the case; the applicant's prayer for quashing is refused.ratio¶10
As a protective direction, if the applicant appears before the court below and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided in the light of the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Brahm Singh v. State of U.P., 2016 (95) ACC 950.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur), J.), order dated 11.2.2022 in Application U/S 482 No. 3302 of 2022: Akil Islam @ Tabrez sought quashing of the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 241 of 2021 (State Vs. Mahtab Ansari and others), the cognizance order dated 30.7.2021 and charge-sheet no. 1 of 2021 in case crime no. 801 of 2020, P.S. Ghosi, District Mau, under sections 34, 323, 342, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(d) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, contending that he was neither named in the first information report nor in the complainant's statement and was implicated merely on his presence at the spot. The Court held that the factual matter cannot be looked into at this stage; the FIR showed the person who took the complainant was unknown and his name surfaced during investigation, so it could not be said that he was not the present accused. Finding no ground to quash, the Court refused the prayer and disposed of the application finally, directing that if the applicant appears before the court below and applies for bail, his bail application be considered and decided in the light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Brahm Singh v. State of U.P., 2016 (95) ACC 950.

Court No. - 34

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3302 of 2022

Applicant :- Akil Islam @ Tabrez Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arif Ikbal,Ashutosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

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

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of the case, cognizance order dated 30.7.2021 and the charge-sheet no. 1 of 2021 in case crime no. 801 of 2020, criminal case no. 241 of 2021, State Vs. Mahtab Ansari and others, under section 34, 323, 342, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(d) of SC/ST ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, police station Ghosi District Mau.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is neither named in the first information report nor the complainant has named him in her statement. It is a no injury case. The main accused of the case has been exonerated. The present applicant has falsely been implicated merely on the basis of his presence on the spot.

Learned A.G.A. has contended that during investigation the name of the present accused has come into light. The statements recorded by the police have not been filed by the applicant. The facts mentioned in the first information report cannot be looked into by this court at this stage, hence prayer is made to reject the present application.

If we go through the first information report, it is mentioned therein that unknown person took away the complainant-lady on his motorcycle, on the pretext that her uncle had called her, to a jewellery shop where one Ameer son of Mahroom was sitting. The person who brought the complainant on the motorcycle snatched her mobile and ran away. When the complainant made hue and cry, Ameer, one lady and two boys came there and began to beat her making allegation of theft against her. Thus, the name of unknown person was to be investigated by the police and after investigation the police filed charge-sheet no. 1 of 2021 against the present accused. The factual matter cannot be looked into by this court at this stage. After going through the first information report, it cannot be

said that the person who took the complainant on the false pretext is not the present accused. His name came during investigation. I do not find any ground to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid case. The prayer as made by the applicant is hereby refused.

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears before the court below and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided in the light of law laid down in Satender 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.

The application is disposed of finally.

Order Date :- 11.2.2022 Gss

Digitally signed by GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA Date: 2022.02.11 17:59:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad