Allahabad High Court
Akhilesh Kumar Yadav @ Akhilesh ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 25 April, 2023
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4033 of 2023
Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Yadav @ Akhilesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Salman
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Salman, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Himanshu Suryavanshi, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the entire record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceeding of charge sheet No.390 of 2021 dated 26.05.2021 in Criminal Case No.1777 of 2023 (Old Case No.5785 of 2022) titled as State vs. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav and others arising out of Case Crime No.312 of 2021, under Sections 143, 147, 323, 452, 504, 506, 171-F I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao.
3. 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.
4. His further submission is that the content of the first information report does not disclose any ingredients, which are essential to constitute offence under Sections 143, 147, 323, 452, 504, 506, 171-F I.P.C. He has also submitted that even during investigation, no credible evidence could be collected against the present accused/ applicant. Despite, this fact, a charge sheet came to be laid mechanically against the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant, on the basis of aforesaid submissions, has submitted that the present proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of this Court and a malicious prosecution too, which deserves to be quashed.
6. Per contra, learned Brief Holder 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.
7. 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.
8. Thus, in view of aforesaid, learned Brief Holder for the State has submitted that the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned Brief Holder for the State and upon perusal of record including the first information report and the charge sheet laid against the present applicant, this Court is of considered view that 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.
10. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the impugned charge sheet 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.
11. 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.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is finally disposed of.
(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)
Order Date :- 25.4.2023
cks/-
