Dismissed

Raju Sonkar v. State of U.P. Trru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2023/4133/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge disposed of a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking to quash proceedings under Sections 498A IPC and related provisions. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding the settled law of quashing, the court held no ground for quashing existed. It directed the trial court to expedite the trial pending since 2006.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing the proceedings under Sections 498A IPC and related provisions is refused. The trial is directed to be expeditiously concluded.

Raju Sonkar Vs State of U.P. Trru. Secy. Deptt. of Home… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4133 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Raju Sonkar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Trru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Diwakar Singh,Arun Kumar

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Diwakar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vivek Gupta, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the entire record.

¶7

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No.1088/2006, arising out of Crime No.34/2006, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Manikpur, District Pratapgarh pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh.

¶8

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.

¶9

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 Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act. He has also submitted that even during investigation, no credible evidence could be collected against the present accused/ applicant.

¶10

Despite, this fact, a charge sheet came to be laid mechanically against the applicant.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

11. However, it is needless to mention that having regard to the fact that the aforesaid case is pending since 2006, it is expected from the trial Court to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case, by following the provisions of Section 309 I.P.C., strictly without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties, in case there is no other legal impediment.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 27.4.2023 A.Dewal

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raju Sonkar v. State of U.P. Trru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Sonkar v. State of U.P. Trru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

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

Tilakram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Ashish Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and 4 Others

Ashfaq Hussain @ Jiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another