Disposed

Pawan Kumar and Ors. v. the State of U.P and Anr.

Allahabad HC16 May 2024/5777/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as they disclosed an offence with no legal bar. The court refused to act as a pre-trial forum but granted permission to the applicants to seek discharge before the trial court within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash dismissed; permission for discharge application before trial court granted.

Pawan Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of U.P and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37505

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5777 of 2013

¶4

Applicant :- Pawan Kumar And Ors. Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Angrej Nath Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Arvind Pratap Singh a n d -

¶5

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5418 of 2013

¶6

¶7

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶8

The aforesaid mentioned arise out of the same petitioner and the same set of fact, hence they both are being decided by a common order. As main case, Application U/S 482 No. - 5777 of 2013 is being taken as the leading case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has filed counter-affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

The instant Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicants with a prayer to quash the committal order dated 20.08.13 passed Chief Judicial Magistrate 1 Gonda. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly also be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Criminal Case No.725/13/11, State Vs Pawan Kumar & others pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate 1" Gonda during pendency of Crl.Misc Case No.5418 (482) of 2013, Pawan Kumar & others Vs State of U.P. & another.

¶12

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.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants also prays for permission to

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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 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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

With the above observations, both the applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of . Let a copy of this order be placed on the file of Application U/S 482 No. - 5418 of 2013.

¶22

( Shamim Ahmed, J. )

¶23

Order Date :- 16.5.2024/A.Nigam

¶24

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

Pawan Kumar and Ors. v. the State of U.P and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar and Ors. v. the State of U.P and Anr.

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

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

Taiyyab Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Musaib and Others Vs State of U.P.Thru.Secy.Home Lko.and Another

Rizwan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and Another