Dismissed

C.B. Singh @ Chandra Bhawan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Allahabad HC28 Apr 2023/87/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC dismissed. Court held no grounds existed to quash summons or charge sheet based on Bhajan Lal and other precedents, ruling the petition lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of impugned charge sheet and summoning order refused.

What the court decided

C.B. Singh @ Chandra Bhawan Singh Vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 87 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- C.B. Singh @ Chandra Bhawan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Gopesh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,S M Singh Royekwar,Sumeet Tahilramani

¶5

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned order dated 15.12.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.5360 of 2022, arising out of Case rime No.169 of 2013, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 342, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Biswa, District Sitapur.

¶8

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

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 420, 467, 468, 471, 342, 506 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.

¶10

His next submission is that the learned trial court, vide order dated 15.12.2022, proceeded to take cognizance under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 342, 506 I.P.C. and consequently, the

¶11

applicant came to be summoned to stand trial.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

case (supra), no ground for quashing the instant proceeding exists.

¶18

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

¶19

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 : (2022) SCCOnLine SC 825.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 28.4.2023 Saurabh

¶22

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

C.B. Singh @ Chandra Bhawan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

C.B. Singh @ Chandra Bhawan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

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

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

Ruchi Singh Vs State of U.P Thru Prin. Secy Home. and Others

Abhishek Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home and Another

Shahjad Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko. and Another