The Allahabad High Court condoned a delay of 115 days in filing a criminal appeal. It also rejected the appellant's petition to quash the trial proceedings, holding disputed facts required adjudication by the trial court. Permission to file for discharge was granted.
Delay condoned; quashing prayer refused; permission to apply for discharge granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:52412
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1663 of 2021
Appellant :- Ateequr Rahman Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar Shukla,Shailendra Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Nripendra Mishra
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
(Order on C.M. Application No.142744 of 2021)
This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal appeal is reported to be beyond time by 115 days.
The reasons shown in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay is sufficient and convincing.
The application is allowed . Delay is condoned .
Office is directed to allot regular number to this appeal.
(Order on Memo of Appeal)
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. for the State today in the Court is taken on record.
The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant, Ateequr Rahman with a prayer to stay the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.308/2021 (State Vs. Ateequr Rahman) pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Bahraich.
All the contentions raised by the appellant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and
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.
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.
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.
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.
With the above observations, this appeal stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.8.2023 Saurabh
Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the condonation of delay in filing the criminal appeal is justified.
Whether the High Court should accept the grounds raised to quash the proceedings before the trial court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶20
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶20
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶20
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶20
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 · Who else cites this
Ateequr Rahman
State Of U.P.
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
