Mohsin Khan Alias Mosin and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Civil Sectt. Home Deptt. Lucknow, U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29936

Court No. - 27

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3380 of 2024

Applicant :- Mohsin Khan Alias Mosin And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Civil Sectt. Home Deptt. Lucknow, U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Prem Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge sheet filed in Sessions Case No.3291 of 2023, Case Crime No.0070/2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Itaunja, District Lucknow as well as entire proceedings in pursuance thereof.

¶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.-I 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 hearing the public prosecutor.

¶11

From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the

¶12

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 as well as request made by learned Counsel for the 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

¶17

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

Order Date :- 16.4.2024 Saurabh

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohsin Khan Alias Mosin and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Civil Sectt. Home Deptt. Lucknow, U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohsin Khan Alias Mosin and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Civil Sectt. Home Deptt. Lucknow, U.P. and Another

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

Jawahar Lal and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Pawan Kumar Saxena and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Civil Sectt. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P. and Another

Neelam Mishra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko and Another

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Ramjeet Rawat @ Ramjeet and 5 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Anil Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another