Sageer Ali @ Lallan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2522

Court No. - 16

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 170 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sageer Ali @ Lallan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sachin Verma,Praveen Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 25.10.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Raibareli in Criminal Revision No.64 of 2023 as well as impugned order dated 18.01.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Raibareli in Complaint Case No.1084/2020, under Sections 323, 504, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Naseerabad, District Raibareli.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a reputed person in the society and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due village party rivalry. He further submits that the impugned summoning order passed by the court below is totally arbitrary and illegal and the same has been passed without considering the material evidence available on record and the cognizance has been taken by the court below in a routine manner on the charge sheet, which is also prepared without considering the material facts available on record, thus, he submits that entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner may be quashed and the present petitioner may be allowed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner also prays for permission to appear through counsel before the concerned lower court within a period of three weeks from today and move an application claiming discharge on behalf of the petitioner and this Court may direct the court below to decide the application so moved by the petitioner.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has disputed the aforesaid contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner but he has not opposed the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner to move a discharge application before the court below through counsel.

¶10

All the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon

¶11

to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. In the process of invoking its inherent jurisdiction, this court cannot be persuaded to have a pre trial before the actual trial begins. The submissions made by the learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case.

¶12

The quashing of the charge sheet and the entire proceedings can also be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and also in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 make the position of law in this regard clear.

¶13

In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Apex Court which might justify the quashing of charge sheet, summoning order or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The court below has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.

¶14

As requested by learned counsel for the petitioner, the permission to appear through counsel before the concerned lower court within a period of three weeks from today and move an application claiming discharge on behalf of whom this petition has been moved, is granted. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits in accordance with law within a period which shall not exceed a period of two months from today.

¶15

With the above observations, this petition stands disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 10.1.2024 Saurabh

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sageer Ali @ Lallan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sageer Ali @ Lallan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Khushbu Thru. Her Husband Lal Chand Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Dilip Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sahaj Ram Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Ratan and 2 Others. Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Wasi Name Mentioned as Wasi @ Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Malik Vs Additional Principal Judge, Room No. 2 of Family Court Lucknow and Another