Dismissed

Harishchand v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2024/361/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal appeal filed to quash a summoning order. The court distinguished cited precedents and found the appeal misconceived due to the magistrate's clear evidence and handwritten cognizance order, noting the appellant's prior awareness of pending investigations.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed; the summoning order was left in force.

Harishchand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11088

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 361 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Harishchand Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Javed Khan,Ajmal Khan,Rajesh Kumar

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 20.12.2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 21, Sultanpur in Case Crime No. 542 of 2015 U/s 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Piparpur, District- Amethi.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged as counter blast. He further submits that charge-sheet was submitted by Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner. He further submits that summoning order was passed by learned trial court on a printed performa. Relying on the decision of this Court passed in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2083 of 2023 (Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P. and another) dated 01.03.2023, it is, thus, submitted that indulgence of this Court is required.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of appellant and submits that F.I.R. of the case in question was challenged before Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7545 of 2015 (M/B) (Harish Chandra vs. State of U.P. and others) in which initially, the interim order was passed on 20.08.2015, and thereafter, on 17.09.2015, the aforesaid petition was dismissed with the observation that incriminating evidence has been collected by Investigating Officer and charge-sheet has been prepared and forwarded for filing; further direction was given in the aforesaid writ petition that charge-sheet be filed within three weeks, if already not filed. He further submits that charge-sheet was filed on which cognizance was taken by learned Magistrate on 20.12.2015, and thereafter, summoning order was passed which was challenged after about 10 years as it was well known to the appellant that the charge-sheet was

¶11

prepared and it was to be filed. He also submits that the judgement relied by learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable in the present case and cognizance order was passed by learned Magistrate in his own hand-writing on the said charge-sheet, therefore, the appeal is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, the impugned summoning order dated 20.12.2015 as well as other relevant documents; it is clearly evident from the certified copy of the charge-sheet provided separately by learned counsel for the appellant that cognizance order was passed by learned Magistrate on 20.12.2015 in his own handwriting on the said charge-sheet which was submitted by Mr. R.K. Chaturvedi, Circle Officer/Investigating Officer, Amethi. It is also evident that while dismissing the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 7545 of 2015 (M/B), it was observed that chargesheet be filed within three weeks, if already not filed, therefore, it cannot be said that appellant was not aware about filing of charge-sheet. The aforesaid judgement relied by learned counsel for the appellant will not apply in the present case as the order has been passed by learned Magistrate related to cognizance.

¶13

In view of above, the present appeal is misconceived and accordingly stands dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 7.2.2024 Arpan

¶15

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

Harishchand v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harishchand v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home 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

Shatruhan Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Sumit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Tribhuvan Prasad Singh @ T.P. Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mintu Pandey @ Mantu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Shivam Yadav Thru. His Father Pankaj Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another