Partly allowed

Devdatta Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 May 2022A482/7548/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the application to quash criminal proceedings due to inordinate delay and prima facie offences made out, but directed the lower court to decide the applicant's bail application within four weeks citing Satender Kumar Antil.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; directed to lower court to decide bail application within four weeks as per Satender Kumar Antil.

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

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7548 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Devdatta Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Pal Singh,Satyawati Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Supplementary afÏdavit on behalf of the applicant filed today, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Bhupendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ravi Kant Kushwaha, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶7

By way of the present application, the applicant has made a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 10 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.286 of 2015, under Section 386 IPC, Police Station Debai, District Bulandshahr as well as the charge sheet dated 26.9.2015 submitted by the Investigating OfÏcer against the applicant and also cognizance order darted 6.1.2016, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopshahr, Bulandshahr.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that totally on the basis of false and frivolous allegation the applicant has been implicated in the present case and the entire allegation made against the applicant in the FIR is totally false and the Local Police also failed to properly investigate the matter and in routine manner submitted charge sheet against the applicant. He further submitted that in the present case the summoning order against the

¶9

applicant has been passed in the year 2016 but he could not earlier approached this Court as the summon could not be served upon him. He further submitted that the arrest of the applicant was stayed by this Court as the applicant earlier approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No.17622 of 2015 for quashing of the FIR of the present case and this Court was pleased to stay the arrest of the applicant till submission of charge sheet and after that when charge sheet was submitted the applicant could not become aware and, therefore, in the year 2021 the applicant approached this Court, i.e., after about five years.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the applicant has approached this Court after more than five years after taking cognizance and the charge sheet of this case was submitted against the applicant even in the year 2015 and further due to non-appearance of the applicant warrant has been issued against the applicant and further on merit also the present case is liable to be dismissed as from the perusal of the FIR and other evidence on record prima facie offence under Section 386 IPC is made out against the applicant.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶12

The applicant has approached this Court in the year 2021 for quashing the charge sheet of the present case which was filed in the year 2015 and further against the cognizance order which was

¶13

passed on 6.1.2016, therefore, the applicant approached this Court after more than five years of submission of charge sheet and after passing cognizance order against him and at present warrant has been issued against him due to nonpresence of the applicant.

¶14

The ground taken by the applicant that he could not earlier approached this Court only due to the reason that he could not receive the summon, in my opinion, is unsustainable as the applicant was very well aware about the pendency of the present case as earlier he had already approached this Court in the year 2015 for quashing of the FIR and this Court stayed his arrest till the submission of charge sheet. As far as merit of the case is concerned, FIR and other documents on record discloses, prima facie, offence against the applicant under Section 386 IPC. Therefore, on merit also the instant application is liable to be dismissed. As the applicant approached this Court after inordinate delay of more than five years and at present warrants have already been issued against him and prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the applicant, therefore, present application is devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶15

After passing this order, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is ready to appear before the court below within four weeks from today, and therefore, a direction be given to the trial court to decide the bail application of the

¶16

applicant in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2021 (10) SCC 773 .

¶17

In view thereof, it is directed that if the applicant appears before the court below within four weeks from today and applies for bail then his bail application shall be decided by the court below as per the direction given by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

¶18

Order Date :- 27.5.2022 SKM

¶19

Digitally signed by SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2022.06.14 11:02:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devdatta Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devdatta Sharma 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

Surendra Kumar (Advocate) Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shiv Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Chhatra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home, And Another

Utakarsh Kumar Sinha and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rishi Chawla Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sunil Kumar Rastogi Vs State of U.P and Another