Allowed

Sagir and 25 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2023A482/6894/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 188 IPC and others initiated without prior magistrate permission as mandated by Section 195 CrPC. The court held such proceedings void ab initio and allowed the petition, quashing the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been allowed; the impugned proceedings regarding taking cognizance and summoning the petitioners are quashed.

Sagir and 25 Others Vs State of U.P.and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Court No. 87

¶3

Application U/S 482 No.6894 of 2023

¶4

Sagir and others Vs. State of U.P. and another

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Government Advocate, representing the respondent State, and gone though the entire file.

¶7

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 02.06.2022, for quashing of order dated 03.12.2022 by means of which cognizance was taken as well as entire proceedings of Case No.6407 of 2022 (State Vs. Abdulla Aazam and others), arising out of Crime/FIR No.0052 of 2022, Police Station Tanda, District Rampur under Sections 188 and 269 IPC, Section 3 Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Section 51 Disaster Management Act, 2005, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1^st . Rampur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under the provisions of Section 195 CrPC, there is a complete bar for taking cognizance for an offene under 188 IPC except for the complaint made by public servant. It is further submitted that no FIR could have been registered under Section 188 IPC, however, in the present case not only the FIR was registered for offence under Section 188 IPC but also the police has filed the charge sheet. It is further submitted that the government itself has taken a decision regarding withdrawal from prosecution in respect of offences registered under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 3 of Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 . The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that filing of the charge sheet, taking of cognizance and initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioners for offences under Section 188 IPC is against the express provisions of Section 195 CrPC and, therefore, the same is void ab-initio .

¶9

¶10

The learned Additional Government Advocate does not dispute the aforesaid legal proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶11

Considering the facts, circumstances, law and scope of the provisions of Section 195 CrPC, this Court is of the view that no cognizance could have been taken on the charge-sheet submitted by the investigating agency on the basis of the FIR lodged under Section under Sections 188 and 269 IPC, Section 3 Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Section 51 Disaster Management Act, 2005 as no investigation could have been carried out without prior permission of the concerned Magistrate. Since the government itself has taken a decision to withdraw the prosecution in respect of the offences under Section 188 IPC, no purpose would be served for continuation of the proceedings in respect of the said offences. Thus, the proceedings of taking cognizance and summoning the petitioners are void ab initio and are liable to be quashed.

¶12

In view thereof the present petition is allowed . Consequently the impugned proceedings are hereby quashed.

¶13

[D.K. SINGH,J.]

¶14

Order Date: 24.02.2023 MVS/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sagir and 25 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagir and 25 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vipin Dixit @ Sonu and 4 Others Vs State of Up

Vinod Kumar Vajpayi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pushupati Nath Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahid Ali Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjun Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Murti Ram @ Ram Murti Vs State of U.P. and Another