Dismissed

Pravesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 May 2023A482/584/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the charge sheet under Sections 307, 34 IPC, and 25 Arms Act. The court held that adjudicating factual disputes was the trial court's role and that the case involved a strong prima facie case against the applicant, failing to meet criteria for quashing.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to quash the charge sheet and summoning order is refused; the application is rejected.

Pravesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:104238

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 584 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pravesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Priyanka Sharma,Avnish Kumar Srivastava,Ram Raj Pandey,Shubham Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Priyanka Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed by the applicant to quash the charge sheet no. 73 of 2016 dated 10.03.2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 0091 of 2016, under sections 307, 34 IPC and 25 Arms Act, Police Station Aurangabad, District Bulandshahr on which cognizance has been taken on 21.10.2022 by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, District Bulandshahr.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged against four named accused including the applicant wherein details about the recovery have been mentioned. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted, in which cognizance has been taken. Hence the present petition is filed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of recovery of live cartridges the present first information report has been lodged to falsely implicate the applicant only for the purpose of harassment. He further submits that the present case is a no injury case. The applicant has already been released on bail. He next submits that another FIR under section 25 Arms Act has also been lodged only on the basis of recovery of live

¶10

cartridges made from the pocket of the applicant. Hence, proceedings against the applicant are bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed.

¶11

Learned AGA on the other hand submits that the applicant has been arrested on spot and present first information report has been lodged against him on basis of the recovery of live cartridges made from the pocket of the applicant, therefore, presence of applicant on the place of incident cannot be denied. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned AGA has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in MANU/SC/1432/2019.

¶12

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

¶13

This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to come only on

¶14

the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:-

¶15

(i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866,

¶16

(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335,

¶17

(iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222,

¶18

(iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005

¶19

(1) SCC 122,

¶20

(v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682,

¶21

(vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454,

¶22

(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45,

¶23

(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143 and lastly

¶24

(ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made

¶26

against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

¶27

The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 10.03.2016 and summoning order dated 21.10.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.

¶28

The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected.

¶29

Order Date :- 8.5.2023 Arti

¶30

Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pravesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

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

Smt Kalawati and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajan Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Minakshi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivam Gaur Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kannaujiya Alias Rakesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another