1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|08 November, 2017
Court No. - 45
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34002 of 2017 Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Dixit,Anupam Shyam Dwivedi,Utkarsh Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case bearing session trial no. 474 of 2017, arising out of case crime no. 284 of 2016 under sections 452,376,506 of I.P.C. P.S. Atrauli , District Aligarh, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Aligrah.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant involve several intricate factual details and many disputed questions of fact related to the case. False implication due to malafide intention has been pleaded.
By invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court the applicant cannot persuade the court to have a pre trial before the actual trial begins. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant call for adjudication on pure questions of fact and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case.
The quashing of the complaint 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 R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of law in this regard clear.
In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Apex Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.
As requested, the applicant is permitted to appear before the concerned court within a month from today through his counsel and move an application claiming discharge, provided it has not already been decdided. The concerned 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 three months from today.
No coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicant for a period of three months from today or till disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier.
If the concerned court after hearing the counsel for the accused feels persuaded to have the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application . On the other hand if the lower court even after hearing the counsel for accused holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material brought on record does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits.
It is clarified that if applicant does not avail of this order within the stipulated period of time no application for extension of time shall be entertained.
With the above observations, this application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.11.2017 MLK
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • Shashi Kant Gupta
  • Sudhir Dixit Anupam Shyam Dwivedi Utkarsh Dixit