Disposed¶16

Surendra Kumar Shukla and Ors. v. the State of U.P and Anr.

Allahabad HC15 May 2024/3897/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Shamim Ahmed, J.), 15.05.2024, Application U/S 482 No. 3897 of 2011, Surendra Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. — quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 363, 366, 368 IPC and summoning order dated 20.07.2011 refused; disputed questions of fact; no pre-trial under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; discharge application permitted; R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma, Zandu Pharmaceutical relied on; neutral citation 2024:AHC-LKO:37274.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the proceedings and summoning order refused; applicants permitted to appear through counsel before the trial court within three weeks and move a discharge application, which the trial court shall decide on merits within two months. ¶16

Surendra Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs the State of U.P and Anr. — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings of S.T. No.435 of 2010, C.C. No.1275 of 2009, under Sections 363, 366, 368 I.P.C. and the summoning order dated 20.07.2011 ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

All contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact; in invoking its inherent jurisdiction the Court cannot hold a pre-trial before the actual trial begins, and such factual questions are for the trial court to adjudicate.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Quashing of the charge sheet and entire proceedings is permissible only if no offence is disclosed or there is a legal bar; in the absence of any ground recognised by the Apex Court, and no abuse of the court's process being seen, the prayer for quashing is refused.

¶14

Key takeaways

The trial court is vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage of framing charges, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.ratio¶14
The applicants are permitted to appear through counsel before the concerned trial court within three weeks and move an application claiming discharge; the trial court shall decide that application on merits in accordance with law within a period not exceeding two months.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Section 482 Cr.P.C. — quashing of proceedings in S.T. No.435 of 2010 (C.C. No.1275 of 2009) under Sections 363, 366, 368 I.P.C., P.S. Amethi, District Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Mahraj Nagar, and summoning order dated 20.07.2011 — contentions raised disputed questions of fact and testimonial worth of prosecution evidence; inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to hold a pre-trial before the actual trial begins — quashing permissible only if no offence is disclosed or a legal bar exists (R.P. Kapur; Bhajan Lal; P.P. Sharma; Zandu Pharmaceutical relied on) — no such ground made out, no abuse of process; prayer refused — trial court empowered to discharge before framing of charge if charge groundless — applicants permitted to appear through counsel and move discharge application within three weeks; trial court to decide on merits within two months — application disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37274

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3897 of 2011

¶4

Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Shukla And Ors. Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Srivastava,Suresh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Ms. Ankita Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant with a prayer to quash the proceedings of S.T. No.435 of 2010, C.C. No.1275 of 2009, under Sections 363, 366, 368 I.P.C., Police Station Amethi, District Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Mahraj Nagar as well as summoning order dated 20.07.2011.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed person in the society and they have 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 applicants may be quashed.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

All the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

As requested by learned counsel for the applicants, 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.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 15.5.2024 Saurabh

¶18

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

Surendra Kumar Shukla and Ors. v. the State of U.P and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar Shukla and Ors. v. the State of U.P and Anr.

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

Similar cases

Sumit Singh Chauhan and Another Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Raziulla Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Deep Lata Raj Vs State of U.P. Director Prosecution U.P. Lko. and Others

Haseer Ahmad and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Meesam Rafiq Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Sanjay Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another