Dismissed

Tulsiram Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2024/1118/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the appellant challenged the summons order dated 07.03.2024 under the SC/ST Act. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding quashing, held that the impugned order was not perverse or illegal. Quashing was refused, but bail was indicated to be considered within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of summons order refused; bail to be considered on fresh application within four weeks.

Tulsiram Pandey Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76708

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1118 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Tulsiram Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mata Prasad Chaturvedi,Shiv Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the entire record.

¶7

The instant criminal appeal 14 (A) (1) of SC/ST Act has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment and order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Sitapur "Lallan Prasad vs. State of U.P." arising out of Case Crime No.05 of 2021, under Sections 166, 201, 217, 218 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Sandhan, Sitapur by which the appellant has been summoned.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in this case. His further submission is that the present appellant has been summoned vide order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned trial Court. His further submission is that the entire prosecution story as narrated in the FIR is improbable and unbelievable. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that pendency of the instant criminal proceedings against the appellant is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court and, therefore, the impugned criminal proceedings be quashed.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently submitted that the law of quashing has been fairly settled in the celebrated judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State

¶10

of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866.

¶11

His further submission is that in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramveer Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2022 SC 2044 and Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 513 , truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution version or defence version cannot be looked into at this stage.

¶12

Thus, in view of aforesaid, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the instant criminal appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record including the first information report and the summoning order, this Court is of considered view that in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), R.P. Kapur's case (supra), Ramveer Upadhyay's case (supra) and Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan's case (supra) , the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and the same can not be said to be perverse. Thus, the instant criminal appeal is devoid of merit.

¶14

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 07.03.2024 is refused.

¶15

However, it is needless to mention that if the appellant applies for grant of bail within a period of four weeks from today, the trial Court shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : MANU/SC/1024/ 2021 and Satender Kumar Antill vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal appeal is finally disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 20.11.2024/Mahesh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Tulsiram Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tulsiram Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanat Kumar Srivastva Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Dabbu Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Lko. and 3 Others

Syed Mohd. Arshad Zaidi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Imran Afreen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Vinod Kumar Shukla @ Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mayank Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another