Allahabad High Court
Gandharva Singh And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 October, 2014
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42090 of 2014
Applicant :- Gandharva Singh And Anr
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant application has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire criminal proceedings of criminal case no. 25 of 2014 (State Vs. Gandarbh Singh and another) pending in the Court of A.C.J. (J.D.) Etah, initiated in pursuance of the charge sheet no. 49 of 2014 in case crime no. 89 of 2014 under sections 352, 504 IPC at police station Sakeet, district Etah.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant with vague allegations as stated in FIR. The Investigation Officer has submitted the charge sheet in a pedantic manner and court below has summoned them to face the trial in the charged offences in a routine manner which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
The learned AGA has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants and has submitted that the investigation was done in fair and impartial manner, therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the court below. The innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at the pre-trial stage.
Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel at the bar and after going though the record of the case, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. The Court below has rightly taken the cognizance against the applicants. There is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Court below.
At the state of issuing process of the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record. Only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is made out or not. The Appex Court has also laid down the guidelines in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1999 SCC (Crl) 426, and State of Bihar Vs. PP Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl) 192 where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power envisaged under section 482 Cr.P.C
Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this court does not find any justifiable ground for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case in exercise of its inherent powers conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C..
In the result, the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused. The application is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30-days from today and apply for bail, then their prayer for bail shall be heard and disposed of in view of decision rendered in the case of Smt. Amrawati and another Vs. State of UP reported in 2005 Cr.LJ, 755 which was approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlenfdra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP (2009) 4 SCC 437. It is further provided that the applicants are at liberty to raise any objection in their defence at appropriate stage by moving discharge application which shall be considered by the Court below in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 13.10.2014
SKS
