Gulsar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Gulsar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Section 482 Cr.P.C. application praying for quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No. 9112 of 2021, the charge sheet dated 26.10.2021 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 28.10.2021 can still be entertained when charges have already been framed under Section 228 Cr.P.C. and the charge-framing order has not been impugned in the application.

Court's answer

Upon perusal of record, this Court finds that charges have already been framed against the applicant by the court below in exercise of power under Section 228 Cr.P.C.

Ratio / Principle

Given that charges have already been framed and the framing-of-charge order passed by the court below has not been impugned in this application, the prayer made in the application is misconceived.

Key takeaways

Once charges have been framed by the court below, that court is bound to answer them one way or the other.ratio¶7
No good ground exists to entertain the present application; the application fails and is liable to be dismissed.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:33121; Order Date 6.3.2025) dismissed Application U/S 482 No. 40982 of 2024 by Gulsar, a charge-sheeted accused, who prayed for quashing of the entire proceeding of Case No. 9112 of 2021 (State Versus Gulsar) — in Case Crime No. 828 of 2021 under Sections 294, 354A, 452, 376, 386, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Baraut, District-Baghpat — together with the charge sheet dated 26.10.2021 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 28.10.2021 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, pending in the court of F.T.C-1st, Baghpat. The learned A.G.A. submitted that more than three years and four months had rolled since the summoning order and that the offence, being exclusively sessions-triable, must proceed to committal and framing of charges under Section 228 Cr.P.C.; confronted with this, learned counsel for applicant fairly conceded that charges had already been framed. Finding that charges stood framed by the court below under Section 228 Cr.P.C. and that the framing-of-charge order had not been impugned in this very application, the Court held the applicant's prayer misconceived, observing that once charges have been framed the court below is bound to answer them one way or the other; consequently no good ground existed to entertain the application, which failed and was dismissed.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33121

Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40982 of 2024

Applicant :- Gulsar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicant in Court today is taken on record.

Heard Snil Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party no.1.

Perused the record.

Applicant Gulsar, who is a charge-sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

"It, is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.9112 of 2021 (State Versus Gulsar), in Case Crime No.828 of 2021 Under Section 294, 354A, 452, 376, 386, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Baraut, District-Baghpat, as well as charge sheet dated 26.10.2021 and cognizance/ summoning order dated 28.10.2021 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat which is pending in the court of F.T.C-1st, Baghpat."

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party no.1 submits that the applicant was summoned by court below vide summoning order dated 28th October, 2021. As such, a period of more than three years and four months has rolled since the date of passing of summoning order. Offence complained of is triable exclusively by the court of Sessions. As such, the case must have been committed to the court of Sessions. The charges against the applicant must have been framed by the court of Session in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 228 Cr.P.C. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court in this application.

When confronted with the above, the learned counsel for applicant fairly submits that charges have already been framed against the applicant by court below.

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned

A.G.A. for State/opposite party no.1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that since charges have already been framed against applicant by court below in exercise of power under Section 228 Cr.P.C., coupled with the fact that framing of charge order passed by court below has not been impugned in this application, therefore, the prayer made by applicant is present application is now misconceived.Once the charges have been framed by court below the court is bound to answer the same one way or the other.

In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. As a result, this application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Rajeev Misra, J.)

Order Date :- 6.3.2025

Sushil/-

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