Dismissed

Madhu and 2 Others v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2024A482/3180/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, the court rejected the prayer as fact-intensive issues not suitable for inherent jurisdiction. However, the court granted permission to the applicants to move a discharge application within three weeks, directing the trial court to decide it within two months.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to applicants to appear through counsel before the trial court within three weeks to move for discharge; trial court directed to decide within two months.

Madhu and 2 Others vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3180 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Madhu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Sagar,Pawneesh Kumar Vikram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicants with a prayer to quash the chargesheet No. 02 of 2022 dated 14.03.2022 under Sections 147/323/504/506/308, Cr.P.C. in F.I.R. No. 0414 of 2021, P.S. Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, filed against them and summoning order dated 22.11.2023 passed in pursuance thereof.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed person in the society and they have been falsely implicated in the present case due to rivalry. He further submits that the impugned proceedings pending before the learned trial court are totally arbitrary and illegal and the same have been instituted without considering the material evidence available on record. Thus, he submits that entire criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants may be quashed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants also prays for permission to appear through counsel before the concerned trial court within a period of three weeks from today and move an application claiming discharge on behalf of the applicants and this Court may direct the trial court to decide the application so moved by the applicants.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has disputed the aforesaid contentions made by learned counsel for the applicants but he has not opposed the request made by learned counsel for the applicants to move a discharge application before the trial court through counsel.

¶10

All the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. In the process of invoking its inherent jurisdiction, this

¶11

court cannot be persuaded to have a pre trial before the actual trial begins. The submissions made by the learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case.

¶12

The quashing of the charge sheet and the entire proceedings can also be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 , State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 , State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and also in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 make the position of law in this regard clear.

¶13

In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Apex Court which might justify the quashing of charge sheet/summoning order/impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The trial court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.

¶14

As requested by learned counsel for the applicants, the permission to appear through counsel before the concerned trial court within a period of 3 weeks from today and move an application claiming discharge on behalf of whom this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved, is granted. The concerned trial court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits in accordance with law within a period which shall not exceed a period of 2 months from today.

¶15

With the above observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of .

¶16

( Shamim Ahmed, J. )

¶17

Order Date :- 9.4.2024 A.Nigam

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Madhu and 2 Others v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu and 2 Others v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. 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

Niyaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Chandra ( in Charge Sheet Dinesh) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Other

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

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homes Lko. and Another

Akanksha Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another