Dismissed

Iqpal and 13 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2023A482/12507/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and summoning orders. The court held that alleged malafides cannot be a ground for quashing proceedings prior to the conclusion of trial, citing CBI vs. Aryan Singh.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings and stay summoning orders was dismissed.

Iqpal and 13 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12507 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Iqpal And 13 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants- Iqpal, Vipin, Ramveer, Chanda, Pinki, Neeraj, Jitendra @ Jatti Singh, Dallu, Kashi, Babita, Rajesh, Sachin, Jatin @ Jitendra and Sanjaywati with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint No. 369 of 2022 (Meer Singh Vs. Chanda and others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 354, 354B, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Babugarh, District Hapur and summoning order daed 09.03.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Hapur summoning the applicant nos.1 to 12 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., applicant no.13 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 354B, 504, 506 I.P.C. and applicant no.14 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C.with a further prayer that proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed against the applicants during the pendency of the present application.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the present first information report has been lodged after a delay on the basis of an application moved u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The matter was investigated after which the applicants have been summoned to face trial. It is argued that the involvement of the applicants in the present case is false. No such incident whatsoever has taken place. Learned counsel for the applicants while placing reliance on paragraph 21 of the affidavit argued that on 01.06.2021 Shivam the nephew of first informant had seen the electricity meter of one of his neighbour and said there was no electricity in it and on that issue Rakesh caught his neck and asked him to properly see the meter and there arose some hot talks between them and on 02.06.2021 at about 4.30 pm Rakesh, Sushil and Naresh entered in the house of Kashiram and started abusing him and Chandikiran and assaulted them

¶9

and when wife of Kashiram came to save them, the accused persons also assaulted on her head by iron rod regarding which a first information report was lodged on 02.06.2021 as Case Crime No. 231 of 2021, under Sections 452, 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. It is argued that the same is the malafide into which the applicants have been involved in the present case.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing and argued that in so far as the malafides are concerned, the same cannot be a ground for quashing. It is argued that the applicants are involved in the present case and were named in the first information report after which after going through the protest petition, the trial court treated it as a complaint and summoned the applicants after conducting enquiry vide its order dated 09.03.2023. It is argued that the order summoning the applicants is a detailed order on merits considering every aspect of the matter. There is no irregularity or illegality in the same. The present petition is devoid of any merits and deserves to be quashed.

¶11

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that in so far as the ground of malafides are concerned, the same cannot be a ground for quashing. The Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 292 has held that ground of malafides have to be seen at the conclusion of trial and cannot be a ground for quashing of the criminal proceedings.

¶12

In view of the same, looking to the facts of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court, I do not find it a fit case for interference, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 24.4.2023 AS Rathore

¶14

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Iqpal and 13 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iqpal and 13 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Yasir Ali and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harshankar and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kapoor Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jalim Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Pratap and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another