Dismissed

Vinay Kumar Pathak and Others v. State of U.P. Thru.the Prin.Secy.Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2024/3134/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings due to alleged mala fide intent. Court held offence disclosed, quashing refused, but directed trial court to decide bail expeditiously if moved within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed; positive direction issued for expeditious bail hearing if applications are moved within four weeks.

Vinay Kumar Pathak and Others Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29415

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3134 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Pathak And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.The Prin.Secy.Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Raman Mishra,Aradhana Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the entire proceeding of the Case No-9950 of 2022, Smt. Maya Devi V/s Vinay Kumar Pathak & others, under Sections - 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C, Police Station Payagpur, District Bahraich, pending before the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (A.C.J.M.) Bahraich as well as impugned summoning order dated 25-112022 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (A.C.J.M. ), Bahraich in the said case, and the impugned order of the revisional court dated 19-02-2024, passed in Revision number 1 of 2023, Vinay Kumar Pathak and others v/s State of U.P. and another, in respect of the applicants only.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.

¶9

After some argument, learned counsel for the applicants 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 applicants, 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.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection to the prayer made by learned Counsel for the applicants 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 applicants, expeditiously in accordance with law after

¶11

hearing the public prosecutor.

¶12

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 applicants.

¶13

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 .

¶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 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 charge sheet/summoning order/impugned proceedings is refused. There is no merit in this case. The applicants have ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.

¶16

In view of the submissions made by learned Counsel for the

¶17

parties, if the applicants appear and surrender before the trial court and apply 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) .

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

( Shamim Ahmed, J. )

¶22

Order Date :- 10.4.2024 A.Nigam

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinay Kumar Pathak and Others v. State of U.P. Thru.the Prin.Secy.Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Pathak and Others v. State of U.P. Thru.the Prin.Secy.Home Deptt. 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

Madhu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homes Lko. and Another

Akanksha Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Vivek Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Others

Rohit Misra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Pradeep Alias Kuldeep Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another