Allahabad High Court
Gaurav Sharma vs State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. ... on 11 April, 2023
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3436 of 2023
Applicant :- Gaurav Sharma
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Verma,Anil Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ambrish Verma, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the entire record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.7677 of 2021 (State vs. Gaurav Sharma) arising out of Case Crime No.68 of 2021, under Section 174-A I.P.C., Police Station Gola, District Kheri, pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Lakhimpur Kheri as well as impugned charge sheet No.302 of 2021 dated 15.05.2021 submitted by the investigating officer against the applicant in the aforesaid Case Crime No.68 of 2021 and impugned cognizance/ summoning order dated 18.10.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that accused/ applicant is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in this case due to some ulterior reason.
His further submission is that, in fact, the accused/ applicant surrendered and got bailed out vide order dated 08.04.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Bail Application No.519 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.415 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Gola, District Kheri. Therefore, the impugned proceeding under Section 174-A I.P.C. is not tenable in law and the same is nothing but an abuse of process of this Court, which deserves to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently submitted that the law of quashing has been fairly settled in the celebrated judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866.
His further submission is that in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramveer Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2022 SC 2044 and Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 513, truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution version or defence version cannot be looked into at this stage. At such an early stage to rush of this Court for quashing itself is an abuse of process of this Court as the trial has not progressed substantially.
Thus, in view of aforesaid, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it is useful to quote Section 174-A I.P.C., which is quoted herein below:-
"[174-A. Non-appearance in response to a proclamation under Section 82 of Act 2 of 1974.?Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has been made under sub-section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.]"
Having perused the record, it transpires that the case under Section 174-A I.P.C. came to be lodged and cognizance order dated 18.10.2021 came to be passed earlier only. Subsequently, the present applicant got himself bailed out vide order dated 08.04.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Bail Application No.519 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.415 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Gola, District Kheri. In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), R.P. Kapur's case (supra), Ramveer Upadhyay's case (supra) and Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan's case (supra), no ground for quashing the instant proceeding exists.
Even otherwise, the applicant shall have an opportunity at the appropriate stage to move an application for discharge taking therein all the pleas factual and legal which may be available to him, in accordance with law including the plea that he never willfully disobeyed.
In case, such an application is moved before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court shall dispose of the same by a speaking and reasoned order strictly, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the impugned charge sheet as well as impugned summoning order and the entire proceeding is refused as this Court does not find any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the proceedings under challenge. There is no abuse of court's process either.
However, it is needless to mention that if the applicant applies for grant of bail, the court below shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : MANU/ SC/ 1024/ 2021.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is finally disposed of.
(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)
Order Date :- 11.4.2023/ cks/-
