Shivam Alias Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:26897

Court No. - 27

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3021 of 2024

Applicant :- Shivam Alias Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Chandra Dwivedi,Sunil Mohan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

List of fresh cases has been revised.

¶7

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the applicant, however, Shri Hari Shankar Bajpai, learned A.G.A-I for the State-opposite parties is present.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Special Case No.690/2022 arising out of Charge sheet No.100/2022 dated 29.03.2022, Case Crime No.90/2022 under Section 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Bilgram, District-Hardoi; State vs. Shivam @ Amit Kumar, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. (Women), Hardoi.

¶9

As per the averments made in the present application, 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.

¶10

Learned A.G.A-I for the State submits 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.

¶11

From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case and after considering the averments made in the present application, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicant.

¶12

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

¶13

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 .

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

In view of the averments made by learned Counsel for the applicant in the present application and submissions of learned A.G.A-I, if the applicant appears and surrenders before the trial court and applies for bail within four weeks' from today, if not already applied for the same, the prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the trial court in accordance with law after hearing the Public Prosecutor.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed of.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 2.4.2024 Piyush/-

¶21

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

Shivam Alias Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Alias Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

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

Bhola Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kirti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Mohd Furqan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Deptt. U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Mangla Prasad Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Raj Kumar Mishra @ Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

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