Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC15 May 2024/4434/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court declined to quash the charge sheet or summoning order under the Essential Commodities Act, holding that a prima facie offence was disclosed. However, the court directed the trial court to expeditiously consider and decide any bail application filed by the applicants within four weeks, citing Satender Kumar Antil.

What did the court decide?

No direction to expedite bail granted immediately; applicants directed to apply for bail within four weeks for expedited trial court decision.

Sanjay Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37114

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4434 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjay Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prince Singh,Bishnu Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Prince Singh, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Veer Bhan Singh, 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 no.01/2020 dated 31.08.2020 and summoning order dated 04.09.2023, Case Crime No.0129 of 2020, under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Criminal Case No.95206 of 2023, Police Station Aliganj, District Lucknow as well as to quash the 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 :- 15.5.2024 Saurabh

¶20

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

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

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

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