Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2024A482/1650/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused the prayer to quash the charge sheet and summoning orders in a criminal trial, holding that offences are prima facie disclosed. However, it directed the trial court to decide any future bail application expeditiously in accordance with Satender Kumar Antil guidelines if applicants surrender within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; direction issued for expeditious bail consideration if applicants surrender within four weeks.

Harinam @ Harinam Singh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30516

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1650 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Harinam @ Harinam Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Madhukar Raman Yadav,Jai Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Sri Ashutosh, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Jai Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashutosh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

¶8

By means of this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 22.06.2023, arising out of Case Crime No.148 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 & 427 I.P.C., Police StationNagram, District-Lucknow as well as the cognizance and summoning order dated 12.10.2023 and other consequential summoning order along with entire proceedings of Case No.112603 of 2023 (State of U.P. vs. Guru Prasad and others), pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IVth, Lucknow, so far as it relates to the present applicants, as contained in Annexure Nos.9 & 10 to the petition.

¶9

In compliance of the order dated 21.02.2024, the applicant no.1 Harinam @ Harinam Singh, applicant no.2 Mata Prasad, applicant no.3 Vikas and opposite party no.2, Smt. Nirmala Devi are present before this Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel.

¶10

Today, the parties are called for obtaining their consent with regard to compromise, however, the opposite party no.2, Smt. Nirmala Devi completely denied for the compromise.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

Learned A.G.A.-I for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have 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.

¶14

From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the 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.

¶15

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 .

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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 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) .

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed of.

¶21

Interim order granted vide order dated 21.02.2024 stands vacated.

¶22

Order Date :- 18.4.2024 Saurabh

¶23

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harinam @ Harinam Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. the Addl. Chief 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

Ram Prasad and 8 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Guddu @ Manish and Another Vs State of U.P.

Radhika, Thru. His Father Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Others

Himanshu Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 2 Others

Hari Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Sweety Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and Ors.