Dismissed

Pankaj Kuamar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2023/3908/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 354 and 504 IPC alleging malicious prosecution and lack of prima facie evidence. The court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that the allegations do not warrant quashing and dismissed the application, directing the lower court to decide the bail plea expeditiously.

What the court decided

AI extract

Pankaj Kuamar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3908 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Pankaj Kuamar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pranvesh Awasthi,Rohit Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the entire record.

¶6

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 01.09.2018 passed against the petitioner in the Criminal Case No.548 of 2018, (State versus Pankaj Kumar) under Section 354, 504 IPC Police Station-Khandasa, DistrictAyodhya/Faizabad and impugned charge sheet bearing no.179 of 2017 dated 18.11.2017 in Criminal Case No.548 of 2018, (State vs. Pankaj Kumar), pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Ayodhya/Faizabad at Police Station-Khandasa, District-Ayodhya/Faizabad.

¶7

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that accused/ applicant is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in this case due to some ulterior reason.

¶8

4. His further submission is that the content of the first information report does not disclose any ingredients, which are essential to constitute offence under Section 354, 504 I.P.C. He has also submitted that even during investigation, no credible evidence could be collected against the present accused/ applicant. Despite, this fact, a charge sheet came to be laid mechanically against the applicant.

¶9

5. Learned counsel for the applicant, on the basis of aforesaid submissions, has submitted that the present proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of this Court and a malicious prosecution too, which deserves to be quashed.

¶10

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently submitted that the law of quashing has been fairly settled in the celebrated judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866.

¶11

7. His further submission is that in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramveer Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2022 SC 2044 and Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 513 , truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution version or defence version cannot be looked into at this stage. At such an early stage to rush of this Court for quashing itself is an abuse of process of this Court as the trial has not progressed substantially.

¶12

8. Thus, in view of aforesaid, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

¶13

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record including the first information report and the charge sheet laid against the present applicant, this Court is of considered view that in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) , R.P. Kapur's case (supra) , Ramveer Upadhyay's case (supra) and Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan's case (supra) , no ground for quashing the instant proceeding exists.

¶14

10. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the proceedings under challenge is refused as this Court does not find any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the same. There is no abuse of court's process either.

¶15

11. However, it is needless to mention that if the applicant applies for grant of bail, the court below shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : MANU/SC/1024/2021.

¶16

12. With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is finally disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 26.4.2023 Raj

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pankaj Kuamar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pankaj Kuamar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivam @ Shivam Sahu ( @ Vishnu) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Naushad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Ketan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and 2 Others

Virendra Kumar Kanaujia @ Virendra Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Ramu @ Rajesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others