Disposed

Girish Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 May 2023CRLA/3185/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act, the Court refused to quash the Magistrate's take cognizance/summoning order. It held that a prima facie case exists and factual disputes are for the trial Court. The appeal was disposed of with directions to the trial Court to consider bail applications expeditiously if the appellants appear within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is disposed of with direction to the trial Court to consider and decide the bail applications expeditiously if the appellants appear and surrender within 30 days.

Girish Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:113876

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3185 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Girish Sharma And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Udisha Tripathi,Vinod Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Rahul Saxena, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Vinod Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been filed by the appellants- Girish Sharma, Munish Sharma and Sandeep Sharma with the prayer to allow the present appeal and set aside the cognizance/summoning order dated 25.1.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, court No. 2, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Case No. 159 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 75 of 2022, under Sections 342, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) Dha of SC/ST Act, police station Banda, disrict Shahjahanpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellants has made many factual submissions to demonstrate that the FIR was lodged on false and concocted facts just to pressurize and harass the appellants and the Investigating Officer without going deep into the matter in a cursory manner has submitted the charge sheet, and the court below has taken cognizance without considering the matter in right perspective and, therefore, the charge sheet, the order of the Magistrate, whereby the cognizance has been taken and process is issued are bad in law and the same be quashed.

¶9

It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellants that in the first information report as well as in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the role of assault has been attributed to the various persons, however, no injury report pertaining to the injuries sustained by any of the person has been placed on record nor has been collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.

¶10

Having regard to the fact that the parties are highly inimical

¶11

towards each other, in all probability the appellants have been framed by lodging the instant F.I.R., and thus, due care and caution, which was required from the Special Court has not been adhered to and the summoning order has been passed mechanically without application of judicial mind.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. while controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for appellants submits that, the arguments of the learned counsel for appellants is, with regard to the factual aspects of the case which cannot be appreciated at this stage, as only a prima facie case is required to be seen at the stage of taking of cognizance and issuance of process.

¶13

Shri Vinod Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 submits that no illegality or to say any irregularity has been committed by the trial Court in summoning the appellants for the offence committed by them, thus, no intereference is required in the impugned order.

¶14

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 appellants. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be appreciated by this Court as at this stage only a primafacie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 1747, Bhushan Kumar and Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 923 , Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation , in Kishun Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, reported in MANU/SC/0460/1993 : (1993) 2 SCC 16 , State of W.B. and Anr. v. Mohd. Khalid and Ors . reported in MANU/SC/0154/1995 : (1995) 1 SCC 684 , S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited and Ors . reported in MANU/SC/7011/2008 : (2008) 2 SCC 492 , M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in MANU/SC/0349/1989 : 1989(26) ACC 280 (SC) , Minu Kumari and another Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in MANU/SC /8098/2006 : 2006 (4) SCC 359 , Nupur Talwar vs C.B.I. reported in 2013 AIR SCW 369 and in State of Gujrat Vs Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in MANU/SC/0139/2019 .

¶15

Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the cognizance/summoning order as well as all proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused.

¶16

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017, In

¶17

Re: To issue certain Guidelines Regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, MANU/SC/0292/2021 have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions in quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail applications should be decided, expeditiously.

¶18

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 has issued various guidelines and provided a scheme with regard to the cases where the Charge Sheet has been filed without arrest of the accused person(s) during investigation and accused person(s) have Cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before the Investigating Officer whenever called. Apex Court has also provided special procedure with regard to such cases where the charge sheet has been submitted under offences punishable with up to seven years of imprisonment. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Cout in Satendra Kumar Antil (supra) reiterated in the recent judgement in Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941.

¶19

In the backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the request of learned counsel for the appellants, the appeal is disposed of with direction to the trial Court that if the appellants appear and surrender before the Court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the Court below strictly in accordance with the law referred to herein above.

¶20

Order Date :- 23.5.2023 Sumaira

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Girish Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Sharma and 2 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Dixit @ Ashwani Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Parshuram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sarita Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Md. Lateef and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shobh Nath Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramanand Dwivedi @ Satya Prakash Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and Another