Dismissed

Radheshyam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2023/1791/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against a cognizance order under the SC/ST Act, the Allahabad High Court held that the trial is solely for factual disputes. The court refused to quash proceedings and granted permission to the appellant to file a discharge application before the lower court within two months.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to appear through counsel before the lower court for discharge application within three weeks.

Radheshyam Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:47106

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1791 of 2022

¶4

Appellant :- Radheshyam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Arjun Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bhasker Mal, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 14(A)1 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is moved against the impugned cognizance order dated 26.04.2022 passed in Special Case No.456 of 2022 (State Vs. Raju @ Ashok Kumar and others), Case Crime No.21 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) & 3(2)Va of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kaudia, District Gonda, whereby the appellant has been summoned.

¶8

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.

¶9

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

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

With the above observations, this appeal stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 19.7.2023 Saurabh

¶15

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

Radheshyam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radheshyam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow 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

Jaheer and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another

Daddan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Goldie @ Dinesh Lal Shukla @ Dinesh Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Ram Raheesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko.

Nitin Alias Jatin Alias Jeetu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Satya Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another