Dismissed

Mayank Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 May 2023CRLA/1145/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Appeal challenging an order summoning the appellant under the SC/ST Act and IPC was disposed of. The Court dismissed the appeal due to lack of merit regarding illegality but directed the trial court to decide bail expeditiously upon the appellant's appearance and surrender.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellant directed to appear within 20 days so that the trial court may decide bail strictly as per satellite of law in Satender Kumar Antil case.

Mayank Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:106086

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1145 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Mayank Sharma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Prakash Chandra Srivastava,Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Abhishek Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Prakash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Abhishek Srivastava, learned cousnel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the S.C./S.T. Act has been preferred by the appellant- Mayank Sharma with the prayer to set aside the proceedings including the impugned order dated 30.08.2022, passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Meerut in Criminal Misc. Case No. 85 of 2020 (Dr. Sugharpal Singh Vs. Mayank), under Sections 323, 506 IPC and Section 3(2) 5A of SC/ST Act, Police Station Pallavpuram, District Meerut, whereby the appellant has been summoned.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant while drawing attention of this Court towards an FIR earlier lodged by the informant of the instant case registered as Case Crime No. 247/2019 and order of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 13.10.2022, whereby the order of taking no coercive action has been passed in favour of the appellant, it is submitted that earlier also a false FIR was lodged by the informant and after thorough investigation final report was submitted, however, a protest petition has been filed by the opposite party no.2.

¶10

It is further submitted that in connection with an incident occurred with the brother of the appellant, namely, Yogesh Sharma and FIR was lodged by him on 13.10.2019 against the opposite party no.2 and his family members and the opposite party no.2 was also arrested therein and was sent to jail and in between the lodging of FIR and the arrest of opposite party no.2 in that case, simple injuries has been manufactured by the opposite party no.2 and a false FIR was lodged bearing case

¶11

Crime No. 330 of 2019, however, after thorough investigation a final report was submitted therein but on a protest petition filed by the opposite party no.2 the special court has taken cognizance under Section 190(1) (b) Cr.P.C. and summoned the appellant to face trial under Sections 323, 506 IPC and Section 3(2) 5A of SC/ST Act.

¶12

It is vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient material available in the case diary and on the basis of which cognizance may be taken under Section190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and thus special court has exceeded in exercising its jurisdiction and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶13

Learned AGA has, however, supported the judgement passed by the trial court.

¶14

Learned cousnel for opposite party no.2 submits that the FIR which has been lodged by the opposite party no.2, is the counter blast of the FIR which was lodged by the brother of the appellant Yogesh Sharma on 13.10.2019 bearing Case Crime No. 302/2019 wherein the opposite party no.2 was arrested and sent to jail. Attention of this Court was also drawn towards the injury report pertaining to the opposite party no.2 of date 17.10.2019, wherein injuries are shown to have been sustained by the opposite party no.2 and the duration of the injuries is shown as four days old and for all purposes the instant FIR is the cross FIR of the First Information Report lodged by the brother of the appellant, namely, Yogesh Sharma.

¶15

Having heard learned cousnel for the parties and having perused the record, it is transpired that the parties are highly inimical with each other and earlier also an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the appellant, however, the instant FIR wherein after filing of the final report the appellant has been summoned by the special court by taking cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. appears to be a cross FIR of the First Information Report lodged by the brother of the appellant- Yogesh Sharma bearing Case Crime No. 302/2019. The opposite party no.2 is shown to have sustained many injuries and prima facie these injuries may not be termed as either self inflicted or manufactured and is also subject matter of the trial. The parties are leveling allegations and counter allegations with regard to the incident occurred on 13.10.2019 at 8.00 a.m. and the truth can only be surfaced after fulfledged trial. Thus in the considered opinion of this Court the proceedings of the case pending before the special court pertaining to this case may not be culminated at the threshold.

¶16

In result I do not find any illegality in the impugned order,

¶17

having regard to the injury report pertaining to opposite party no.2. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed as such.

¶18

At this juncture, learned cousnel for the appellant submits that the appellant is ready to appear/ surrender before the trial court for the purpose of participation in the proceedings and he has not been arrested during the course of investigation. The appellant has been summoned by the trial court to face trial pertaining to the offences which are punishable up to 7 years of imprisonment, thus, appropriate direction be given to the trial court/ special court to dispose of regular bail application of the appellant in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773.

¶19

Having regard to the submissions made by learned cousnel for the appellant, the instant appeal is finally disposed of with the direction to the trial court that if the appellant appears/surrenders before the trial court within 20 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the court below/ Special Court strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Satendra Kumar Antil' (supra).

¶20

Order Date :- 16.5.2023 Muk

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mayank Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayank Sharma 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

Dr. Shiv Shankar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Paswan Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Intzar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Indrasan Rai and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munesh Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Ritesh Ranjan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others