Dismissed

Shitala Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jun 2023/5584/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, holding no illegality existed and no grounds were found to quash the trial under settled Supreme Court precedents, though bail must be considered expeditiously if filed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of proceedings under challenge refused. Bail, if applied for, to be considered expeditiously by trial court.

Shitala Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:40126

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5584 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shitala Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

2.The present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant against the summoning order dated 15.11.2019 arising out of Case Crime No.0278/2018, under Section 419, 420 IPC, Police Station - Colonelganj, District - Gonda in Case No.10306/2019 (State vs. Shital Prasad), pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda.

¶8

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

¶9

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 323, 504, 506, 308 and 324 I.P.C. He has also submitted that even during investigation, no credible evidence could be collected against the present accused/ applicants. Despite, this fact, a charge sheet came to be laid mechanically against the applicants.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants, 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.

¶11

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 .

¶12

His further submission is that in view of law laid down by the

¶13

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 applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

¶15

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants, 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 applicants, 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

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that this Court has extended benefit of Satender Kumar Antill vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : MANU/SC/1024/2021 in the cases filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C and placed a copy of one of the order/judgment passed by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5607 of 2023, dated 31.05.2023.

¶18

Aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the applicants is not disputed by learned A.G.A.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid, it is provided that if the applicants Shiv Nandan and Shiv Kumari apply for grant of bail, the learned trial Court shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill (supra)

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 2.6.2023 S. Kumar

¶22

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

Shitala Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shitala Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. 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

Mauliram and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Shiv Nandan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mukaddar Ali Vs State of U.P.. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

K.A. Rauf Sherif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Mohammad Ateeq-Ullah Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others