Disposed

Brahmpal Goswami and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 May 2023CRLA/971/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal filed to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order under the Sc/ST Act alleging false allegations. The High Court refused the quashing plea, noting it required factual appreciation beyond its stage. The Court disposed of the appeal but granted special directions to the trial court to expeditiously consider bail applications if appellants surrender within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Quashing prayer refused. Appeal disposed of with direction to trial court to hear bail applications expeditiously if appellants surrender within 30 days.

Brahmpal Goswami and 2 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 971 of 2023

¶3

Appellant :- Brahmpal Goswami And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jitendra Singh,Ankit Sirohi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

As per the report of the office the opposite party no.2 has been served through secondary person. The report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut of date 10.4.2023 is also to the same tune, thus the respondent no.2 appears to have been sufficiently served.

¶6

Heard Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant appeal under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellants, Brahmpal Goswami, Ait Goswami and Madhawa Goswami @ Madhulal with the prayer to allow this present criminal appeal and quash the charge sheet No. 367/22, dated 20.07.2022 as well as cognizance order dated 04.08.2022, under Sections 504, 506, 323 IPC and Section 3(2) (va) of Sc/ST Act, in Sessions Case No. 1283 of 2022 (State of U.P. V. Brahmpal and 2 others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0330 of 2022, Police Station Saradhana, District Meerut, pending in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut.

¶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

Learned A.G.A. while controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for appellants submits that, the arguments of the learned

¶10

counsel for appellants is, with regard to the factual aspects of the case which cannot be appreciated at this stage, as only a primafacie case is required to be seen at the stage of taking of cognizance and issuance of process.

¶11

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 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, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843 and lastly State of Gujrat Vs Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in MANU/SC/0139/2019 .

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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 Court in S.K. Antil (supra) has been reiterated in Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Directo r : 2021 SCC

¶15

OnLine SC 94.

¶16

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.

¶17

It is further provided that special court while considering the plea of regular bail of the appellants shall pay due regard to the statement of Lekhpal - Udaiveer Singh which has been recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation to the fact that no quarrel or incident has occurred in his presence and the land of public utility was illegally possessed by the informant of the instant case.

¶18

Order Date :- 8.5.2023 Muk

¶19

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

Brahmpal Goswami and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brahmpal Goswami 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

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

Chandi @ Chandra Sekhar and Antoher Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Geeta Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Annu Ali @ Javed and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another