Disposed

Atul Saxena v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2023A482/28139/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Atul Saxena after he withdrew his challenge to the charge-sheet and summoning order. The court refused to quash proceedings but directed the applicant to surrender within two weeks and issued a stay on arrest, mandating the lower court to decide the bail application expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Protection from arrest for two weeks or until surrender; direction to lower court to dispose bail application expeditiously.

Atul Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195682

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28139 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Atul Saxena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Balram Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the charge-sheet dated 12.08.2021, cognizance/summoning order dated 05.06.2023 and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 632 of 2022 (State Vs. Atul Saxena) arising out of Case Crime No. 80 of 2021, under Sections 323, 353, 332, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kila, District Bareilly pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Bareilly.

¶8

Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that opposite party no. 2/Constable 2647 Ravendra Kumar, posted at PRV 3462, Police Station Kila, District Bareilly is the complainant in this case, who lodged the first information report on 13.03.2021 for the offence under Sections 332, 353, 323, 504, 506 IPC against the applicant and his family members alleging inter alia that on 12.03.2021, the complainant alongwith Home Guard 1985 Devi Das was on duty on PRV 3462. At about 11:06 p.m., they received information that at the event no. P12032112161, D.J. was playing. On reaching the spot, they told the applicant and his family to stop playing the D.J. then the applicant and his family members started abusing them. They also started beating them and also scratched the badge of Devi Das. On giving warning by the police, the applicant and his family members threatened them that go away from here otherwise they will be killed. After culmination of investigation, charge-sheet

¶9

dated 12.08.2021 was submitted against the applicant, on which, the Magistrate concerned took cognizance and summoned the applicants vide order dated 25.06.2022. The said order was assailed in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 3912 of 2023 on the ground that same has been passed on a printed proforma by filling-in the blanks with the ink without applying judicial mind. The said summoning order dated 25.06.2022 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial Court to pass fresh order in accordance with law vide order dated 20.02.2023. Thereafter, learned Magistrate has passed fresh order dated 05.06.2023 summoning the applicant to face trial, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present application.

¶10

Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, no such incident took place as alleged by the police persons/prosecution.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant after advancing his arguments at some length and putting certain query by the Court as to whether defence of the accused can be taken into consideration at this stage or not, gave up his challenge to the aforesaid impugned charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order and criminal proceedings against the applicant and confined his submission requesting to grant some protection to the applicant to surrender before the concerned court below. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated at the Bar that he is not pressing any other prayer made in this application on merits and prayed that a direction may be issued to the concerned courts below to consider and decide the bail application of the applicant expeditiously.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. submits that it is well settled that at the stage of summoning the accused, learned Magistrate is required to consider only prima facie case and he will not enter into the merit and demerit of the case. However, he submits that in case the applicant is not pressing the relief as sought for by him on merits and wants to surrender before the concerned court

¶13

below, he has no objection if the Court grants protection to him for a short period.

¶14

In view of the above, the relief as sought by the applicant in the instant application is refused.

¶15

However, considering the aforesaid alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned court below within two weeks from today and in case applies for bail, the bail application of the applicant shall be disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law and keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

¶16

For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, he shall not be arrested in the above case.

¶17

With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 11.10.2023 Shubham

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Atul Saxena v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Saxena 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

Sanjeev Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahisha Khatoon and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P.and Another

Vaibhav Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manish Verma @ Gaurav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Pakash Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rasheed Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another