Allahabad High Court
Satyendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 July, 2022
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12471 of 2022
Applicant :- Satyendra Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Jayendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kumar Anish
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard Sri Jayendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kumar Anish, for the opposite party No. 2, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 24.03.2021, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 06, Agra in Criminal Revision No. 366 of 2019 (Satyendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.) and the impugned judgment and order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Agra, in Case No. 3346 of 2016 (State Vs. Satyendra Singh and Others), Police Station - Tajganj, District Agra, with a further prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 3346 of 2016 (State Vs. Satyendra Singh and Others), Police Station - Tajganj, Agra, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., arising out of Case Crime No. 326 of 2013, Police Station - Tajganj, District Agra, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, in so far the applicant is concerned.
Before proceeding to decide the case, some brief facts are worth to be noticed. Earlier the present applicant filed Application U/s 482 No. 13157 of 2017 challenging the non-bailable warrants issued dated 21.03.2017 and the same was disposed of on 01.05.2017. The applicant again filed Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 22756 of 2018, in which proceedings of criminal case was challenged and which was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.07.2018, with liberty being reserved to file a fresh application bringing on record all appropriate facts regarding previous applications filed by the applicant and the orders passed thereon. The applicant yet again filed a petition being Matters Under Article 227 No. 7311 of 2017 and the same was also dismissed as withdrawn on 10.11.2017, further liberty being reserved in this application too to file a fresh writ petition with better particulars. The applicant moved/filed an application for discharge being Case No. 3346 of 2016 before the court below which was dismissed on 03.06.2019 against which the applicant preferred Criminal Revision No. 366 of 2019 before the court below which was dismissed on 24.03.2021. The applicant has filed the present application challenging the order dated 03.06.2019, by which the discharge application moved by him was dismissed. It is also admitted to both parties that this is the first application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. against the order of rejection of the discharge application.
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that he filed discharge application before the court below on the ground that he has been falsely implicated and did not commit the alleged offence. It has been further submitted that Naib Tehsildar, Sadar passed an order on 08.04.2013 in favour of the applicants. Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the issue in question was raised by filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the charge sheet was filed against Vivek Shalya (opposite party No. 2 here). He has further submitted that in that application he contested that for the same cause-of-action, two charge sheet could not be filed. The application was heard by the court below and the impugned order was passed on 03.06.2019. Counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the court below is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the applicant has been falsely implicated and no offence against him, is made out, therefore, the applicant is liable to be discharged. Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that co-accused has been granted interim protection, therefore, on this score, the applicant is also entitled to be granted interim protection.
On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that the applicant has to show illegality in the order passed by the court below. He further submits that the order passed by the court below is correct because in the matter cognizance has been taken, charge sheet has been submitted and all cogent material has been collected and in such a situation, the Court cannot do mini trial at this stage, therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed.
I have seen and perused the impugned order dated 03.06.2019 challenged in the present application. Further the record reveals that the material has been collected and the charge sheet has been submitted in the court and prima facie case is made out, that is why summons were issued. It is further noted that the applicant has not surrendered before the court below till date in the case and without surrendering, he filed the application for discharge which was rejected by the court below.
In view of the aforesaid submissions and facts, I am dismissing the application on two grounds. The first ground is that the all cogent material has been collected and evidence has come on record which cannot be weighed by this Court and the Court cannot do mini trial. Secondly, the fact that the applicant has not surrendered before the court below, therefore, the application for discharge was rightly dismissed by the court below.
The application is dismissed with liberty to the applicant to surrender before the court below and apply for bail. It is directed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, the court below will pass appropriate order on the bail application in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 27.7.2022
Arun K. Singh
