Dismissed

Anil Kumar Vishwakarma and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2024/5690/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings based on a marriage dispute compromise, the High Court held that disputed factual contentions and allegations of false implication are inappropriate for analytical review. The court discharged the application but granted the applicants permission to seek discharge before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Permission to move an application for discharge before the trial court within three weeks and have it decided within two months.

Anil Kumar Vishwakarma and Others Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31362

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5690 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Vishwakarma And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shobhit Kant,Himanshu Singh,Kshitij Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as 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 applicants with a prayer to quash/set aside chargesheet No. 1/2019 dated 30/06/2019 and Criminal Proceedings of Criminal Case No. 13919/2020 (State V/s Anil Kumar Vishwakarma and others) arising out of Case crime No. 255/2019 u/s 498-A, 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Krishna Nagar Lucknow pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-VII Lucknow on the basis of compromise dated 07.02.2020 against the Petitioners.

¶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 evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual

¶12

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

( Shamim Ahmed, J. )

¶18

Order Date :- 22.4.2024 A.Nigam

¶19

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

Anil Kumar Vishwakarma and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Vishwakarma and 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

Similar cases

Girish Chandra Arya and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Police Commissioner Lucknow and Anr.

Rajan Saini Vs State of U.P. Thru. Civil Sectt. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Mohd. Azam and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Priyanka Achari vs Ram Prakash Achari

Annpurna Devi @ Chhotka vs Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda and Ors.

Dr. Irshad Ali and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another