Dismissed

Sanjeev Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2024A482/29553/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court dismissed the applicant's application to quash non-bailable warrants. The Court held that questions of fact and credibility require trial court adjudication and no prima facie case for quashing was made out.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed with liberty to avail appropriate remedies before the trial court.

Sanjeev Singh vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:146776

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29553 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjeev Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Mishra,Anushree Mukherjee Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned NBW orders dated 06.11.2019 and 04.08.2023 as well as other consequential orders arising out of Case Crime No.463 of 1995 titled as State Vs. Shashi Mohan & others under Sections 147, 336, 384, 427 & 341 of I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kydganj, District Allahabad pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.05, Allahabad.

¶8

The case of the prosecution is that the FIR dated 30.11.1995, under Sections 147, 336, 384, 427 & 341 of I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kydganj, District Allahabad was lodged against the applicant and other accused persons with the allegation that the applicant alongwith other accused persons was involved in extortion of money from passengers.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has no concern with the allegations made in the FIR, which was registered in the year 1995. The applicant was

¶10

granted bail by the trial Court vide its order dated 22.12.2006. Thereafter, the applicant started doing private job and had no knowledge about the proceedings of the aforesaid case due to which he could not appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, hence, non-bailable warranted dated 04.08.2023 was issued against the applicant. After issuing non-bailable warrant, without recording any reason, issued proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate has not complied with the mandatory provisions of the statute while issuing process against the applicant. The applicant has been implicated because of student politics.

¶11

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made in the application and stated that the FIR in the instant case was registered in the year 1995 and thereafter, the applicant was granted bail in the year 2006. After granting bail, the applicant did not attend the proceedings before the trial Court due to which after a period of 13 years non-bailable warrants were issued against the applicant. Considering the above stated facts, the prayer made by the applicant for quashing of the orders, is not liable to be quashed.

¶12

In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him

¶13

due to private and personal grudge.

¶14

I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the material and evidence available on record, its prima facie revealed that the case is of the year 1995 and applicant was granted bail in the year 2006, thereafter, he did not appear to attend the proceedings before the trial Court for a long period, hence, non-bailable warrant was issued against him in the year 2019 and thereafter proceedings under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. was initiated against the applicant. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no case for quashing of non-bailable warrants dated 06.11.2019, 04.08.2023 as well as other consequential orders, is made out.

¶15

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed with the liberty to the applicant to avail appropriate remedies before the trial Court.

¶16

Order Date :- 4.9.2024 Imtiyaz

¶17

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶18

Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjeev Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit @ Bhallu @ Akshay Kumar vs State of Up and 3 Others

Ramesh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Deep Shikha vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahil Gulati and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Satpal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandan Balmik and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others