Disposed

Bhoora Alias Bhanu Pratap and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2023/3103/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal against a summoning order under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The single judge refused to quash the proceedings as they involved disputed questions of fact. Permission was granted to the appellant to seek discharge from the trial court within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to the appellant to approach the trial court for discharge within three weeks.

Bhoora Alias Bhanu Pratap and 4 Others Vs State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:54861

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3103 of 2022

¶4

Appellant :- Bhoora Alias Bhanu Pratap And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anoop Vajpayee,Atul Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present appeal under Section 14-A(1) S.C./S.T. Act has been preferred against the summoning order dated 28.10.2022 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Hardoi in Special Session Trial No. 1632 of 2022: State Vs. Bhoora alias Bhanu Pratap and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 205 of 2022, Under Sections 147, 34, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (5A) and 3 (1) (Dha) S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Police Station Pali, District Hardoi by which the appellants have been summoned.

¶8

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 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 summoning order 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.

¶10

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. 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/directions, the appeal is finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 16.8.2023 Arvind

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhoora Alias Bhanu Pratap and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhoora Alias Bhanu Pratap and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmendra Major and Another. Vs State of U.P.

Ayodhaya Prasad and Others. Vs State

Rajendra Vs State of U.P.

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

Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home / Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Smt.Urmila and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.