Quashed

Nafish Ahamad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2024A482/11565/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.PC application seeking quashing of proceedings alleging caste-based assault and cheque-related offences, the Court (per incuriam regarding quashing, stayed lower order) stayed execution of the summons against the applicant pending recording of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Execution of impugned summoning order dated 22.10.2024 stayed pending hearing; Notice issued; Time limits fixed for affidavits.

Nafish Ahamad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11565 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Nafish Ahamad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Saran,Amit Kumar Kaushal,Himanshu Suryavanshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

1. Heard Sri Alok Saran, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.104 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.c. and Sections 3(1)(dha) S.C./ S.T. Act, Police Station Malhipur, District Shrawasti as well as the impugned summoning order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./ S.T. Act, Shrawasti in the aforesaid complaint case.

¶7

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that initially an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. came to be lodged against applicant, however, the same was directed to be treated as a complaint case, pursuant to which, the opposite party No.2 was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C., which gave rise to impugned summoning order dated 22.10.2024, which is patently illegal as the same does not reflect application of judicial mind.

¶8

4. His further submission is that the learned trial court

¶9

failed to appreciate a significant fact that no offence under Section 3(1)(dha) S.C./ S.T. Act is made out having regard to the fact that nothing was done in public view and public hearing.

¶10

5. His next submission with vehemence is that the applicant is stated to be resident of Village Ganeshpur, Shikari Chaura, Shrawasti, whereas, opposite party No.2/ complaint is resident of Village Malhipur, Shrawasti.

¶11

6. His further submission is that there is nothing in the complaint which exhibits that they were known to each other, and once they were not known to each other, it was difficult, unimaginable, or grossly improbable that the opposite party No.2 would be addressed by his caste and casteist slurs would be spoken.

¶12

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn attention of this Court to a civil dispute between the parties, available at page No.44 to the instant application.

¶13

8. In aforesaid view of the matter, learned counsel for the applicant says that the present criminal proceeding is nothing but a tool to exert undue pressure upon the applicant to settle the dispute. He, thus, submits that it is not only malicious prosecution but also an abuse of process of the Court.

¶14

9. Learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant. However, he has been unable to dispute the

¶15

other factual submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, the matter requires consideration.

¶17

11. Issue notice to opposite party No.2, returnable at an early date.

¶18

12. Steps be filed within a week.

¶19

13. Let counter affidavit(s) be filed within four weeks.

¶20

14. A week's time thereafter shall be available to learned counsel for the applicant to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶21

15. List this case immediately after expiry of aforesaid period.

¶22

16. Meanwhile, the impugned summoning order dated 22.10.2024 or any process issued pursuant thereto shall not be given effect to qua the present applicant.

¶23

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 18.12.2024 cks/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nafish Ahamad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nafish Ahamad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Imran Ali @ Rahil vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Smt. Santosh Kumari and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko. and Others

Rohit Agarwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mustak Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Shirish Rastogi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Akhilesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another