Applicant sought quashing of charge sheet and summoning order under Sections 406/420 IPC alleging malafide prosecution. Court held prima facie offence was disclosed and refused quashing, but directed that any bail application filed within four weeks be decided expeditiously per Satender Kumar Antil.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31744
Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2489 of 2024
Applicant :- Mayank Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anjani Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the charge sheet dated 05.06.2023 and summoning order dated 11.09.2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 144/2023, under Secton 406, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 498/2023 (State Vs. Mayank Mishra) pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.
After some argument, learned counsel for the applicant confined his prayer to the extent that a positive direction may be given to learned trial court that if a bail application is moved before it by the applicant, the same may be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law in light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 as the punishment in the above case is less than seven years.
Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection to the prayer made by learned Counsel for the applicant and submit that a positive direction may be issued to the learned trial court to consider and decide the bail application, if moved before it by the applicant, expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the public prosecutor.
From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case and after considering the arguments made at
the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicant.
At the stage of issuing process the trial court is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:- (i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283 .
From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.
The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of summoning order/charge sheet or criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing of summoning order/charge sheet/impugned proceedings is refused. There is no merit in this case. The applicant has ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.
In view of the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, if the applicant appears and surrenders before the trial court and applies for bail within four weeks' from today, the prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the trial court in accordance with law after hearing the Public
Prosecutor in light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) .
With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed of.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 23.4.2024
Arvind
Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet and summoning order in a case under Sections 406/420 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of InvestigationRelied on
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 · Who else cites this
R.P. Kapoor v. State of PunjabReferred¶13
R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶13
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. P.P. SharmaReferred¶13
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶13
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283 · Who else cites this
S.W. Palankattkar v. State of BiharRelied on¶14
S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mayank Mishra
State of U.P.
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
