Disposed

Digambar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2024A482/23695/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed the quashing application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. without addressing the merits of the 'no evidence' plea. The court directed the applicant to file a discharge application before the trial court after securing interim bail.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed; mandatory leave to amend prayer granted; direction to file discharge application and regular bail application before court below.

Digambar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:119292

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23695 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Digambar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Tripathi,Vinod Kumar Tirpathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant submits that due to inadvertence, certain inadvertent mistakes have crept in the prayer clause of this application. He, therefore, submits that he be permitted to amend the prayer clause of this application.

¶7

Prayer made by the learned counsel for applicant is bona-fide. Same is not opposed by the learned A.G.A.

¶8

Accordingly, it is allowed.

¶9

Necessary correction in the prayer clause of this application be carried out by the learned counsel for applicant during course of the day.

¶10

Heard Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinod Kumar Tirpathi, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶11

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused-applicant Digambar Singh challenging the charge sheet dated 17.01.2024 submitted in Case Crime No.517 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 342, 354 (A)(I)(iii) IPC, Section 7, 12 and 13 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, police station Ghaziabad Kotwali, district Ghaziabad, the cognizance taking order/summoning order dated 24.01.2024, passed by Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act), Court No.2, Meerut in Sessions Trial No.113 of 2022 (State Vs. Digambar and others) as well as entire proceedings of aforementioned criminal case now pending in the Court of Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act), Court No.2, Meerut.

¶12

Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel for applicant with reference to the material on record submits that there is no evidence on record to sustain the charge under the charging sections mentioned in the charge-sheet submitted against applicant. On the above premise he, therefore, contends that present case is a case of no evidence. Referring to the judgement of Apex Court in R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of

¶13

Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 he contends that by now the law stands crystallized that the proceedings of a criminal case can be quashed also on the ground that there is no evidence against the accused. The present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgement of the Supreme Court. Up to this stage, no direct and credible evidence has emerged against the applicant on the basis of which it can be definitely concluded that the complicity of the applicant in the crime in question stands established. On the above premise, he therefore contends that present application be allowed.

¶14

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State has vehemently opposed this application. He contends that the issue as to whether there is any evidence against applicant or not as per the documents accompanying the police report submitted in terms of Section 173 (2) CrPC and whether the witnesses examined under Section 161 CrPC have supported the first information report or not is a factual issue, which can be examined more appropriately by the court below as it has the advantage of the entire record. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. contends that in view of the submissions urged by the learned Senior Counsel for applicant in support of this application under Section 482 CrPC, remedy lies to the applicant to approach the court below and file a discharge application in terms of Section 227 CrPC seeking his discharge in aforementioned criminal case. The trial court is obliged to consider the material accompanying police report in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2022) 15 SCC 720 . He thus submits that no interference is warranted by this Court in this application at this stage.

¶15

Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record and evaluation of the submissions urged, this Court finds that no useful purpose will be served in keeping this application pending.

¶16

Accordingly, present application under Section 482 CrPC stands disposed of finally with a direction to the applicant to approach court below by filing a discharge application in terms of Section 227 CrPC seeking his discharge in aforementioned criminal case within a period of two weeks from today along with the certified copy of this order. In case, such a discharge application is filed, court below shall decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months thereafter.

¶17

Since applicant has not yet been enlarged on bail and by virtue of the procedure contained in the Code i.e. CrPC, the discharge application filed by applicant cannot be considered by court below till he surrenders before court below or is

¶18

enlarged on bail. As an interim measure it is further provided that applicant shall file his regular bail application before court below. Upon receipt of the same, court below shall enlarge the applicant on interim bail for a period of two months, during which the application for discharge filed by applicant shall be decided. The interim protection granted to applicant by court below shall automatically come to an end with the passing of the order on the discharge application. It goes without saying that till the disposal of the discharge application, court below shall not proceed further against applicant.

¶19

Order Date :- 25.7.2024. Rks.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Digambar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Digambar Singh v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Anil Kumar vs State of Up and Another

Rajesh Kumar vs State of Up

Lallu Alias Mohd Navi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhola @ Nafisa Khan and Another vs State of Up and Another

Sanjay vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shivshankar Yadav vs State of U.P.