Dismissed

Raees Alam Siddiqui Alias Guddu Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2023A482/2473/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for quashing final orders on discharge and framing of charges. The Court held that separate transactions constitute separate offences and found no merit in the submission regarding identical FIRs, directing the trial to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; trial proceedings directed to proceed expeditiously.

Raees Alam Siddiqui Alias Guddu Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2473 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Raees Alam Siddiqui Alias Guddu Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manu Khare Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gyan Prakash

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, for the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ‘CBI’) and perused the record.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit tendered today in the Court is taken on record.

¶7

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 5.4.2018 as well as the order dated 7.9.2018, whereby the learned trial court has rejected the discharge application and has framed charge respectively against the petitioner and other co-accused passed in Special Case No.21 of 2016 (CBI Vs. Anant Kumar Mishra and others), under Sections 120-B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station CBI/STF, New Delhi.

¶8

The order rejecting the discharge application and framing of charge are the final orders, against which there is a statutory remedy of revision. However, the petitioner has chosen to file the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Since the pleadings are complete and, therefore, this Court would not like to reject the petition on technical ground, but would like to proceed to decide the petition on merit.

¶9

The only submission which has been advanced by the learned

¶10

counsel for the petitioner, is that two FIRs for which separate charge sheets have been filed, are almost identical containing similar allegations. For an offence, two FIRs should not be registered and separate proceedings should not be carried out.

¶11

I have gone through the two FIRs. The substance of the two FIRs is not identical as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also well settled that every transaction constitute a separate offence, for which separate FIRs could be lodged and separate proceedings can be undertaken

¶12

The case relates to the infamous NHRM scam. The case was transferred to the CBI by the order passed by the High Court in Public Interest Limitation petition. The trial has been held up because of the interim order passed by this Court. The accused have been trying and making every possible effort to derail the trial proceedings.

¶13

The case is of the year 2012, but the case has not proceeded as the accused have been able to procure one or the other order staying the trial proceedings.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find any ground to exercise the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the ongoing proceedings.

¶15

Petition being devoid of merit and substance, is hereby dismissed.

¶16

The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial proceedings expeditiously and conclude the same as early as possible.

¶17

Order Date :- 22.2.2023 Rao/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raees Alam Siddiqui Alias Guddu Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raees Alam Siddiqui Alias Guddu Khan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghanshyam Lal Srivastav Vs State of U.P.

Arjun Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Avdhesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhagwat Saran Gangwar and 9 Others Vs State of U.P.

Prabhat Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another