Dismissed¶14

Naeem v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2023A482/30794/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, order dated 5.10.2023, Neutral Citation 2023:AHC:191597, Deepak Verma, J. — Application U/S 482 No. 30794 of 2023 (Naeem v. State of U.P. and Another) dismissed; sought quashing of Special Sessions Trial No.798 of 2020 / Case Crime No.017 of 2020, Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Usawan, District Budaun; Court declined to enter merits at the ongoing-trial stage and relied on R.P. Kapur (AIR 1960 SC 866), Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192) and Zandu Pharmaceutical (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283) to refuse interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the impugned order, the learned Magistrate had passed it after finding a prima facie case against the applicant, with a cognizable offence disclosed from the FIR. ¶10

Naeem Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings in Special Sessions Trial No.798 of 2020 (arising out of Case Crime No.017 of 2020, Sections 392 and 411 IPC, P.S. Usawan, District Budaun) should be quashed in exercise of the Court's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶7

Court's answer

On perusal of the impugned order, the learned Magistrate had passed it after finding a prima facie case against the applicant, with a cognizable offence disclosed from the FIR.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

As the proceedings are ongoing, the Court cannot go into the merits of the case at this stage; the trial court shall examine the statements and pass appropriate orders, and no interference is warranted.

¶11

Key takeaways

In the light of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, no ground for quashing the proceedings is made out calling for interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the proceedings do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.ratio¶13
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Deepak Verma, J.; Neutral Citation 2023:AHC:191597; Order dated 5.10.2023) dismissed Naeem's Application U/S 482 No. 30794 of 2023 seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.798 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.017 of 2020 under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Usawan, District Budaun, pending before Addl. District Judge-V, Budaun. The Court held that since proceedings were ongoing it could not go into the merits at that stage, the trial court being to examine the statements and pass appropriate orders; and that, in the light of 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 Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283), no ground for quashing was made out, the proceedings suffering from no illegality or infirmity. The learned Magistrate had found a prima facie case with a cognizable offence disclosed from the FIR.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:191597

¶2

Court No. - 89

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30794 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Naeem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Nath Bhatt Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.798 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.017 of 2020, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Usawan, District Budaun, pending in the Court of Addl. District Judge-V, Budaun.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has challenged the charge sheet and proceedings and submitted that proceedings in the aforesaid sections is abused of process of court. No credible evidence to support the prosecution case. All the proceedings against the applicant is abuse of law. P.W. 1 and 2 have not supported the prosecution case. In view of the testimony of P.W. 1 and 2, proceedings should be quashed.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case and has submitted that the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶10

From a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned Magistrate has passed the said order after having found prima facie case made out against the applicant and cognizable offence is disclosed from the perusal of the FIR.

¶11

Considered the argument raised by applicant's counsel and from perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case it is evident that proceedings is going on and at this stage Court cannot go into merit of the case. Trial court shall examine the statement and pass appropriate order. No interference is warranted.

¶12

In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960

¶13

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 , no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶14

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 5.10.2023 Nitin Verma

¶16

Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naeem v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naeem v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Ritu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Parmatama Sharan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Omveer Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another