Single judge dismissed an application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings on the ground that the trial had stalled due to the accused's lack of cooperation and non-appearance resulting in the issuance of non-bailable warrants.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing summons order admitted and reasons thereof dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:184062
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26906 of 2023
Applicant :- Bhola And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Juned Alam,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder representing the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the summoning order dated 11.04.2016 and proceedings of Complaint Case No. 152 of 2016 (Keshiya Vs. Bhola and others), under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi.
Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicants is that it is an old matter of the year 2016, in which applicants were summoned vide order 11.04.2016 and they were granted bail on 17.06.2016 but no effective proceeding before the trial Court is going on. Before the trial Court, the case is running at the stage of recording the evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C., therefore, criminal proceeding against the applicants is liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. representing the State vehemently opposed by contending that the accused-applicants after getting bail on 17.06.2016 has been continuously submitting adjournment applications on the dates fixed before the trial Court upto 05.04.2019 and on account of their nonappearance, non-bailable warrants have been issued in the year 2019 but they despite knowledge of the same did not appear before the trial Court. It is further submitted that the instant application has
been preferred by the applicants after an inordinate delay of seven years, therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.
Having heard submission of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that vide order of this Court dated 03.08.2023, a report was called for from the concerned Presiding OfÏcer about present status of trial. Pursuant to said order, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi submitted its report dated 16.08.2023 mentioning therein that nonbailable warrants have been issued against the applicants and on account their non-appearance, trial proceeding is being delayed and in order to secure the presence of accused persons, required procedure provided under the law is being adopted. I also find that after granting bail to the accused persons in the year 2016, they did not cooperate in the trial. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that accusedapplicants cannot take benefit of their own fault and proceeding of this case cannot be quashed on the ground of delay.
Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.9.2023 Shubham
Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the undertrial applicants are entitled to quash criminal proceedings due to lack of active trial proceedings for seven years.
Whether an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed after an inordinate delay of seven years is liable to be dismissed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhola And 2 Others
Sanjay Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
