Partly allowed

Ajeet Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, U.P. Lucknow and Other

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2024/7903/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the applicant sought quashing of criminal proceedings alleging false implication. The High Court refused quashing as facts were in dispute and no recognized grounds for quashing existed, holding that trial courts are best suited to adjudicate credibility. However, the Court granted permission for the applicant's counsel to approach the trial court for disch

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings refused; permission granted to move discharge application before trial court within three weeks.

Ajeet Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30928

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7903 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, U.P. Lucknow And Other Counsel for Applicant :- Aakash Srivastava,Apoorv Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajat Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant seeking quashing of the proceeding of Case No.4247 of 2022 State versus Ajeet Kumar and Others pending in the Court of Civil Judge J.D./F.T.C. (Female), Hardoi, and summoning order dated 11.03.2022 as well as charge-sheet dated 10.11.2021 arising out of Case Crime No.132 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Mahila Thana, District- Hardoi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed person in the society and he has 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 applicant may be quashed.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

All the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon

¶12

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.

¶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 applicant, the permission to appear through counsel before the concerned trial court/ concerned 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 :- 19.4.2024 Piyush/-

¶18

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

Ajeet Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, U.P. Lucknow and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeet Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, U.P. Lucknow and Other

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

Guru Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

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

Harinam @ Harinam Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

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