Deep Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

Deep Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer to quash the complaint proceedings refused; with the direction that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail, the courts below shall hear and dispose of the bail application expeditiously in view of Satender Kumar Antil.

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 06.08.2022 and bailable warrant dated 21.03.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj in Complaint Case No. 6770 of 2021 under Section 364 IPC, and the ensuing complaint proceedings, should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

Court's answer

All the submissions made at the bar related to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Ratio / Principle

At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases cited (Neeharika Infrastructure, R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical).

Key takeaways

The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the complaint case is refused.ratio¶10
It is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail, the bail application shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil.ratio¶13
As and when the applicants approach the trial court for bail, the trial court shall follow the directions (guidelines for deciding bail applications) given by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.; Neutral Citation 2023:AHC:108804) disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Deep Singh and 3 others seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 06.08.2022 and bailable warrant dated 21.03.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj in Complaint Case No. 6770 of 2021 under Section 364 IPC. The complaint arose after opposite party no. 2, aggrieved by the final report in the FIR concerning the death of Om Prakash, filed a protest petition which was treated as a complaint case, and the applicants were summoned after recording the complainant's statement under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. Holding that all submissions at the bar related to disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and that at that stage only a prima facie view in the light of Supreme Court precedents (Neeharika Infrastructure, R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma, Zandu Pharmaceutical) was required, the Court refused the prayer for quashing. Relying on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, it directed that if the applicants appear, surrender and apply for bail, the courts below shall hear and dispose of the bail applications expeditiously.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:108804

Court No. - 70

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18502 of 2023

Applicant :- Deep Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohan Lal Pandey,Dharmendra Kumar Yadav,Hari Krishan Mishra,Lokesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants to quash the impugned summoning order dated 06.08.2022 and bailable warrant dated 21.03.2023 passed by Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj in Compliant Case No.6770 of 2021, under Section 364 IPC pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no.2 has lodged the FIR in respect of death of Om Prakash. After investigation, the investigating officer has submitted final report. Being aggrieved, the opposite party no.2 has filed protest petition, which was treated as complaint case and after recording the statement of the complainant under Sections 200 Cr.P.C., the applicants have been summoned to face trial. He further submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider as no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. He also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case is hereby refused.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicants in view of the judgment in the case Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

In the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for deciding of the bail application. For that purpose, the cases have been divided under four categories. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines, while considering the bail application. This Court has no doubt, that as and when, the applicants approach the trial court for bail, the trial court shall definitely follow the directions given in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

However, considering the nature of the allegations and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).

With the above directions, this application u/s 482 is disposed of finally.

Order Date :- 18.5.2023 Ajeet

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad