Disposed

Chandra Shekhar Mishra and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2023/1164/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Lucknow Bench, first allowed condonation of delay in filing a criminal appeal. Second, it disposed of the appeal against the summoning order and charge sheet, ruling that the matter involves disputed facts suitable only for adjudication by the trial court. The appeal was disposed of without adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing appeal condoned. Permission granted to move for discharge before the lower court within two months.

Chandra Shekhar Mishra and 2 Ors. Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:53381

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1164 of 2021

¶4

Appellant :- Chandra Shekhar Mishra And 2 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sheo Shankar Verma

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

(Order on C.M. Application No.102445 of 2021)

¶7

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants/appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The present criminal appeal is reported to be beyond time by 48 days.

¶10

The reasons shown in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay is sufficient and convincing.

¶11

The application is allowed . Delay is condoned .

¶12

Office is directed to allot regular number to this appeal.

¶13

(Order of Memo of Appeal)

¶14

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

¶15

The instant appeal has been moved on behalf of the appellants, Chandra Shekhar Mishra, Atul Kumar Mishra and Daddu @ Brijendra Nath with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 02.04.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Shravasti in Sessions Case No.208/2021, Case Crime No.0424 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 I.PC. and Section 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bhinga, District Shrawasti as well as to quash the charge sheet dated 27.02.2021 submitted in the aforesaid case.

¶16

All the contentions raised by the appellants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and

¶17

evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. In the process of invoking its inherent jurisdiction, this court cannot be persuaded to have a pre trial before the actual trial begins. The submissions made by the learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case.

¶18

The quashing of the charge sheet and the entire proceedings can also be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and also in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 make the position of law in this regard clear.

¶19

In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Apex Court which might justify the quashing of charge sheet or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The court below has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.

¶20

As requested, the permission to appear through counsel before the concerned lower court within a period of three weeks from today and move an application claiming discharge on behalf of whom this appeal has been moved, is granted. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits in accordance with law within a period which shall not exceed a period of two months from today.

¶21

With the above observations, this appeal stands disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.8.2023 Saurabh

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandra Shekhar Mishra and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Shekhar Mishra and 2 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheetal Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Sher Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Baran Singh and 3 Others. Vs State of U.P.

Ram Narain Vs State of U.P.

Mohan Lal and 2 Others. Vs the State of U.P.

Shafat Ali @ Safa Vs the State of U.P.