Allahabad High Court
Chandan Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 16 December, 2022
Bench: Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9464 of 2022
Applicant :- Chandan Mishra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Shukla,Shiv Pramod Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant namely Chandan Mishra with the prayer to quash the charge sheet no. 642 (a)/2020 dated 04.03.2021 filed under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., in Crime No. 611/2020 lodged at Police Station Kotwali Ayodhya, District Ayodhya as well as summoning order dated 05.03.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad/Ayodhya in Criminal Case No. 14893 of 2020 as well as to set-aside the judgment and order dated 25.08.2022 passed by learned Additiional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Court No.4, Faizabad (Now Ayodhya) in Criminal Revision No. 102 of 2021 (Chandan Mishra vs. State of U.P. and Another).
Learned counsel for the applicant has made many factual submissions to demonstrate that the FIR was lodged on false and concocted facts just to pressurize and harass the applicant and the Investigating Officer without going deep into the matter in a cursory manner has submitted the charge-sheet, and the Court below has also taken cognizance without considering the matter in right perspective and, therefore, the Charge-sheet, the order of the Magistrate, whereby the cognizance has been taken and process is issued are bad in law and the same be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. while controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for applicant submits that, the arguments of the learned counsel for applicant is, with regard to the factual aspects of the case which cannot be gone into by this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the order intended to be passed, the service of notice on opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicant. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only primafacie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843 and lastly State of Gujrat Vs Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in MANU/SC/0139/2019 .
Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the Charge-sheet, summoning order as well as all proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 and In Re: To issue certain Guidelines Regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, MANU/SC/0292/2021 and in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail applications should be decided, expeditiously.
In the backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the application is disposed of with direction to the trial Court that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the Court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the Court below strictly in accordance with the law referred to herein above.
It is also provided that after obtaining regular bail, the applicant may move an application for discharge before the trial court and if such an application is moved within a reasonable time at an appropriate stage, the trial court shall be under an obligation to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order, after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties, strictly in accordance with law.
If the opposite party no.2 feels aggrieved by this order, she/he may approach this Court by moving an appropriate application.
Order Date :- 16.12.2022
Praveen
