Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2023A482/35616/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet and summons. It held that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated at this stage; the applicant has a right to seek discharge before the trial court. The application is disposed of with directions to expedite the discharge application if filed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. refused; application disposed of with directions to expedite discharge application.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:186658

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35616 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Jagdish Saxena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Zafar Abbas,Imtiaz Husain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing charge sheet dated 24.07.2022 and cognizance/summoning order dated 17.09.2022 as well as entire criminal Case No. 4589 of 2022 (State Vs. Sanjay Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, P.S. Afzalgarh, District Bijnor, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Bijnor.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicant and the present case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention, as such, impugned charge sheet, cognizance/summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, impugned charge sheet, cognizance/summoning order as well as entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶10

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed

¶11

questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶12

At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases 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 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶13

Moreover, the applicant had already been directed to be released on bail and he has got right of discharge under Section 239, 245 or 227 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶14

At this stage, this Court is not in a position to weigh the factual matrix of the case properly and accused has a right to file a discharge application before the trial court and the trial court may decide his discharge application, if there is no evidence against him.

¶15

The prayer for quashing the impugned charge sheet, cognizance/summoning order as well as entire proceedings is therefore refused.

¶16

However, it is directed that in case the applicant files an application for discharge before the court below, the same be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the public prosecutor.

¶17

With the aforesaid directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 26.9.2023 Subham

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SUBHAM KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish 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

Manish Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Narayan Vs State of U.P. and an Other

Sant Bal Krishnadas Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ishwar Dayal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishal Hasmukh Sheth and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another