Disposed

Mohammad Sageer Alias Mohd. Sagir v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. (Home) Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2024A482/1912/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought quashing of the charge order framing offences under IPC sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B. The Court held that the trial court had correctly recorded prima facie satisfaction regarding the ingredients of the sections and found no illegality. The petition was disposed of, directing the applicant to raise defenses at the trial stage.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohammad Sageer Alias Mohd. Sagir vs State of U.P. Thru… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:22303

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1912 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohammad Sageer Alias Mohd. Sagir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. (Home) Lucknow And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Alishah Faruqi,Azizullah Khan,Obaidullah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri M.A. Faruqi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

2. In view of the proposed order, the notice to opposite party No.2 is hereby dispensed with.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the second supplementary affidavit, today in the Court, the same is taken on record.

¶9

4. By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

¶10

"1. Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that your honour may be pleased to quash the Charge order dated 06.01.2024 in Complaint Case No.546 of 2019, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Hazratganj, District-Lucknow, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

¶11

2. It is also prayed that on the basis of the above mentioned facts in the petition the impugned order dated 06.01.2024 be stayed and an opportunity be given to the petitioner for a fair departmental enquiry."

¶12

5. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 06.01.2024 on the ground that the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and while framing the charges the learned court concerned has not appreciated the statement of the informant/ complainant which clearly indicates that the present complaint is an outcome of malafide intention. The opposite party No.2 was placed under suspension on the complaint of some person including the present petitioner and having malafide intention against the petitioner as a counter blast he filed a complaint against the petitioner and against one Jai Singh.

¶13

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the aforesaid request of learned counsel for the petitoner by submitting that at the time of framing the charges thereafter legal requirement should be abide by the learned court concerned, the same has been avoided by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. While framing the charges under various sections, the learned trial

¶14

court has not only considered the material available on record but has given his observations in the light and ingredients of a particular section as to why the charges under those sections may be framed. He has further submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved from the order of framing charges, he may take all pleas and grounds before the learned trial court at appropriate stage but at this stage the proceedings may not be quashed and the order dated 06.01.2024 framing the charges may also not be quashed.

¶15

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that at the time of framing the charges, the learned trial court may not conduct the mini trial. The specific requirement at the time of framing the charges is that while framing the charges the court concerned must be satisfied to the effect that ingredients of a particular section/ sections under which the charges are being framed, are prima-facie attracted in the present case and such satisfaction should be indicated precisely in the order framing the charges.

¶16

8. The perusal of the impugned order dated 06.01.2024 reveals that while framing the charges under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B I.P.C., the learned trial court has perused the material available on record and on the basis of material available on record has given its satisfaction in respect of the ingredients of a particular section under which the charges have been framed. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 06.01.2024 framing the charges. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner has got its prima-facie case and he is having material and evidence to convince the court that he has been falsely implicated and the charges have wrongly been framed, while placing such material / evidence, he may plead that he may be exonerated / acquitted from the charges. Such plea may be taken by the petitioner at the appropriate stage of trial and it is needless to say that such pleas and grounds of the petitioner, which are taken at the appropriate stage, must be considered properly and carefully ensuring that the parties of the case are provided appropriate justice.

¶17

9. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of finally.

¶18

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶19

Order Date :- 14.3.2024 Suresh/

¶20

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

Mohammad Sageer Alias Mohd. Sagir v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. (Home) Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mohammad Sageer Alias Mohd. Sagir v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. (Home) Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajesh Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Sectt. Lko and Another

Pankaj Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Waseem @ Chhotu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Mohar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Excise Deptt. U.P. Govt.Lko. and 2 Others

Satyam Kashyap and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Vishram Yadav and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another