Allowed

Surendra Vikram Singh @ Punjabi Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2022A482/849/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing an order rejecting a discharge application. The court held that the proceedings, involving minor injuries, were initiated for political rivalry and amounted to an abuse of process, to be quashed in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the Special Judge, Raebareli, rejecting the discharge application and quashed the impugned proceedings.

Surendra Vikram Singh @ Punjabi… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 849 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra Vikram Singh @ Punjabi Singh And Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by Special Judge, M.P./M.L.A.VI-Additional Sessions Judge/Raebareli in Case No.1024 of 2010: Case Crime No.69 of 2010 :State vs Surendra Vikram Singh under Sections 147, 148, 307, 332, 353, 188 IPC.

¶6

2. The complainant in this case was Sub-Inspector Ram Shankar Singh, who gave a written complaint at police station alleging that on 19.01.2020 the complainant along with one Head Constable and a Home Guard were on duty in respect of protest staged by Samajwadi Party. At around 11:30 A.M., 25-30 persons on 6-8 vehicles accompanying Ex-Minister, Surendra Vikram Singh @ Punjabi Singh and Suresh Paswan, Block Pramukh s/o Devtadeen r/o Paho, Police Station Kheero, District Raebareli, Raju, Deepu etc., came there. They were made aware of the fact that provisions of Section 144 Cr.P.C. had been invoked in the area. However, despite this, these persons moved their vehicles towards the protest site. When the complainant tried to stop the vehicles, he was brushed aside with intention to kill him and these persons went towards Raebareli in their vehicles. It was said that in the incident the complainant received injuries.

¶7

3. The police after investigating the offence filed charge-sheet against 22 persons for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 307, 332, 353, 188 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act.

¶8

4. The petitioners initially moved this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Crl Misc Case No.7612 of 2019 for quashing of the charge-sheet. This court disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioners to move their discharge application through counsel within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the order, and in case such an application

¶9

is filed, same should be heard and decided expeditiously after hearing the parties by means of a reasoned order. However, it was provided that till decision on the discharge application no coercive measure to be taken against the petitioners.

¶10

5. In pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 24.10.2019, the petitioners moved discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court. However, trial Court has rejected the said discharge application on the ground that at the stage of framing of the charge /consideration of discharge application only prima facie case is to be seen. It was said that on considering the oral evidence collected during the course of investigation, offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 332, 353, 188 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act are made out against the accused and, therefore, vide impugned order dated 03.12.2019, said application for discharge was rejected.

¶11

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 was a member of Legislative Assembly from Samajwadi Party in the State. Government was of B.S.P., arch rival of S.P. He submits that FIR and impugned charge-sheet are nothing but abuse of process of the Court. Criminal trial has been set in motion due to political rivalry and for political reasons. He further submits that from the injury report of the complainant, allegedly he has received two injuries i.e. simple contusion and abrasion, and on the basis of injury report of the complainant, 22 persons have been implicated for the offences including the offence under Section 307 IPC. He, therefore, submits that this fact itself shows that the impugned proceedings are nothing but a complete abuse of the process of the Court. There is no evidence to attract an offence under Section 307 IPC. On the basis of injury report, the allegations in the FIR are unsustainable. He further submits that the charge-sheet has been filed under Section 188 IPC. However, there is complete bar for lodging the FIR or taking cognizance for an offence under Section 195 Cr.P.C. for an offence under Section 188 IPC. He, therefore, submits that order passed by learned Trial Court rejecting the application for discharge is not sustainable in law and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶12

7. On the other hand, Mr.A.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. opposes the petition and submits that at the stage of framing of charge prima facie case is to be considered. From the statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, it is evident that the petitioners had committed the offence for which charge-sheet has been filed. He supports impugned order and prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶13

8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A.

¶14

9. Only allegation from reading of the FIR is that the petitioners violated provisions of Section 144 Cr.P.C. The offence under Section 307 IPC is not sustainable in view of the fact that one small injury of contusion has been received by the complainant. If 22 persons would have assaulted the complainant, he should have received many serious injuries. For an offence under Section 188 IPC, there is complete bar for lodging the FIR and taking cognizance under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

¶15

10. In view thereof, this Court finds that continuance of the proceedings which has been lodged for political reasons is not sustainable and therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the impugned proceedings.

¶16

11. The present petition is allowed and the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by Special Judge, M.P./M.L.A.VI Additional Sessions Judge/Raebareli in Case No.1024 of 2010: Case Crime No.69 of 2010 State vs Surendra Vikram Singh under Sections 147, 148, 307, 332, 353, 188 IPC is hereby quashed.

¶17

( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. )

¶18

Order Date :- 14.7.2022 prateek

¶19

Digitally signed by PRATEEK ARORA Date: 2022.07.14 18:40:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surendra Vikram Singh @ Punjabi Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Vikram Singh @ Punjabi Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mushtaque Ali Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Dr. Hargovind Bhargava and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Rafiq Ahamad Vs State of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Secy.Home and Others

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Ishwar Chandra Agarwal Ishwar Chandra Agarwal @ Babia Agarw Vs the State of U.P Thru C.B.I and Anr.

Vipin Kumar Dixit @ Chhotu (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others