Dismissed

Mohd. Shaheed @ Mohd. Shahid v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2024A482/3496/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the applicant's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge-sheet for embezzlement and criminal conspiracy. The court held the application lacked merit, relying on Supreme Court precedents that preclude courts from conducting mini-trials to assess evidence or findings of innocence at the quashing stage.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the charge-sheet was dismissed. The applicant retains the right to approach the court for bail.

Mohd. Shaheed @ Mohd. Shahid Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1736

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3496 of 2016

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Shaheed @ Mohd. Shahid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

1. Case called out. No one appears for the applicant to press this application. However, learned A.G.A. is present.

¶7

2. By means of the instant application, the applicant has challenged the proceedings of Criminal Case No.3-H of 2007: State vs Mohd Shaheed arising out of Case Crime No.168 of 1997 under Sections 409, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B IPC, Police Station Aminabad, Lucknow pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Co-operative Cell, Lucknow as well as Chargesheet No.7-K/2 dated 14.05.2007.

¶8

3. Charge-sheet states that the applicant has embezzled Rs.11658.75/and is guilty of commission of offence under Sections 408, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 420, 120B IPC.

¶9

4. Application u/s 482 No.865 of 2016, filed by accused-Arun Kumar (Arun Kumar Kalra), connected with the present application, has been rejected by this Court by means of following order:-

¶10

"2. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet and entire proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No.1032 of 2006: Crime No.168 of 1997, under Sections 409, 467, 468, 420, 471, 477A, 120B, 408 IPC, Police Station Aminabad, Lucknow.

¶11

3. The charge-sheet alleges during investigation, it has been established that the applicant had embezzled

¶12

Rs.1167.95 and he has committed offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B IPC.

¶13

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has assailed validity of the charge-sheet on the ground that the applicant is the sole accused named in the charge-sheet and he has been charged with commission of the offence under Section 120B IPC. In respect of the same FIR, the police has submitted different charge-sheets against several accused persons and all of them have been found to be guilty of commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC. Therefore, it is not the case that the applicant alone has been charged with commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy and first submission of the learned counsel for the applicant does not deserve to be accepted.

¶14

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the allegation against the applicant is that he had taken an overdraft facility from the Bank and he embezzled Rs.1167.95/-, which allegation is false as even prior to lodging of the FIR, the applicant had deposited entire amount and copies of the receipts deposited have been annexed with the application.

¶15

6. Replying to the aforesaid submission, learned A.G.A. has submitted that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot hold a mini trial and consider the evidence of the applicant to record a finding of his innocence.

¶16

7. Learned A.G.A. has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh , 2023 SCC Online SC 379 wherein it has been held that while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court

¶17

is not required to conduct a mini trial. It does not require the prosecution/investigating agency to prove the allegations. While exercising the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not".

¶18

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the applicant failed to make out a case for quashing of the charge-sheet and the proceedings arisen therefrom.

¶19

9. The application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed . However, in case the applicant appears and files an application for his release on bail, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law, including the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I. , (2021) 10 SCC 773. Rejection of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. will not affect the right of the applicant to take recourse under any other remedy of law."

¶20

5. In view of the aforesaid facts, instant application also lacks merit and the same is also hereby dismissed.

¶21

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 8.1.2024 prateek

¶23

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Shaheed @ Mohd. Shahid v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shaheed @ Mohd. Shahid v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Manoj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rakesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Janki Prasad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Vs the State of U.P and Anr.