Dismissed

Ehtisham Imtiaz Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. and Another

Allahabad HC13 May 2024/3221/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for reasons involving disputed facts. The court granted permission to file a discharge application before the trial court and directed a speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

Permission to appear through counsel and move for discharge before the trial court within three weeks, and for the trial court to decide within two months.

Ehtisham Imtiaz Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37060

¶2

Court No. - 27 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3221 of 2018 Applicant :- Ehtisham Imtiaz Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nadeem Murtaza,Sheeran Mohiuddin Alavi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Rahul Mishra

¶3

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶4

List has been revised.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

The instant Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Case No.664/2002 (State vs. Ehtisham Imtiaz Ali and others), arising out of Case Crime No.354/2001, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Wazirganj, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.B.1.) Ayodhya Prakaran, Lucknow; and for quashing of the order dated 04.08.2002, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.) Ayodhya Prakaran, Lucknow in Case No.664/2002 (State vs. Ehtisham Imtiaz Ali and others), whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and also for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 29.07.2002, arising out of Case Crime No.354/2001, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, filed by the police of Police Station Wazirganj, District Lucknow.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed person in the society and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to rivalry. He further submits that the impugned proceedings pending before the learned trial court are totally arbitrary and illegal and the same have been instituted without considering the material evidence available on record. Thus, he submits that entire criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant may be quashed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant and this Court may direct the trial court to decide the application so moved by the applicant.

¶9

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

¶10

All the contentions raised by the applicant's 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Apex Court which might justify the quashing of charge sheet/summoning order/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.

¶13

As requested by learned counsel for the applicant, 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 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved, is granted. The concerned trial 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.

¶14

With the above observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of .

¶15

( Shamim Ahmed, J. )

¶16

Order Date :- 13.5.2024/A.Nigam

¶17

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

Ehtisham Imtiaz Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ehtisham Imtiaz Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. 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

Similar cases

Surendra Kumar Mishra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Aditya Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.and 3 Others

Rajeev Sonkar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Annexy Bhawan Civil Sectt. Lko.

Jang Bahadur. Station Officer P/S Inayat Nagar and Ors. Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Tiwari and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anurag Awasthi Vs State of U.P. and Ors.