Disposed

Parshuram Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2024/2022/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the FIR and summoning order in a trespass and criminal intimidation case as they did not show abuse of process or reveal no legal bar, noting that fact-disputed matters belong to the trial court. Permission to move a discharge application at the trial court was granted.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the charge sheet and summoning order was refused. Permission to move a discharge application before the trial court within three weeks was granted.

Parshuram Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:19776

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2022 of 2024 Applicant :- Parshuram Sharma And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Roshan Babu Gupta,Shushil Kr. Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Roshan Babu Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge sheet filed against the applicant No.1 under Section 406, 352, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and applicant No.2 and 3 under Section 352/504/506 of I.P.C. (Annexure No.1) and subsequent summoning order dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure No.2) of the case crime No.425/2020 under Section 406, 504, 506 and 352 I.P.C.; State of U.P. vs. Parshuram Sharma and others relating to Police Station-Vibhuti Khand, District-Lucknow East Commissionerate pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magisrate IInd, Lucknow.

¶7

Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed persons in the society and they have been false implicated in the present case due village party rivalry. He further submits that the impugned summoning order passed by the trial court 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 trial court 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 applicants may be quashed and the present application may be allowed.

¶8

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

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has disputed the aforesaid contentions made by learned Counsel for the applicants but he has not opposed the request made by learned Counsel for the applicants to move a

¶10

discharge application before the trial court through counsel.

¶11

All the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon 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 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 trial court 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 applicants, the permission to appear through counsel before the concerned trial court within a period of three weeks from today and move an application claiming discharge on behalf of whom this application 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 application stands disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 5.3.2024/Piyush/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Parshuram Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parshuram Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Salik Ram and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Mithailal Vs State of U.P.

Sant Lal Thru. His Wife Smt. Sumata @ Sitaba Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Smt. Kiran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Krishan Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Hari Prasad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others