Allahabad High Court
Dinesh Kumar Agarwal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 13 January, 2023
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 281 of 2023
Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Agarwal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Gantavya
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard Ms. Meha Rashmi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nirmal Kuma Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the applicant's criminal prosecution including the cognizance cum summoning order dated 28.4.2022, order dated 15.12.2022, charge sheet dated 25.10.2021 and the FIR dated 8.6.2020 registered as Crime No.0178 of 2020 under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as also the Criminal Case No.50459 of 2022, State of U.P. Vs. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and others, pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and further to direct the respondents not to take any action in furtherance of the summoning order dated 28.4.2022 and the order dated 15.12.2022.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after lodging of the F.I.R, the matter was investigated and, thereafter, the Investigating Officer has come to the conclusion that no offence is made out under Section 336 of the I.P.C. and, thus, he has submitted final report to the superior police authorities but the Circle Officer has turned down the final report on his own level and directed to carry out further investigation. Thereafter, in hasty manner, charge sheet was filed without collecting any evidence against the applicant. She next added that in fact after the charge sheet was filed, the cognizance was taken and summon was issued and, thereafter, in compliance of the same, the applicant appeared through counsel before the court concerned but the court below, vide order dated 15.12.2022 rejected the application of the applicant which was moved with the prayer to appear through his counsel.
She further submits that though the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 has been discussed in the order dated 15.12.2022 but that has not been considered in its right perspective whereas this case is wholly covered with the ratio of Judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra). She next added that identically situated co-accused Jeevan Kumar Agrawal, Manju Devi and Mahesh Kumar Agarwal have already filed Application U/S 482 No.9147 of 2022 wherein co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted interim protection to them on 9.12.2022, which reads as under:-
"Till the next date of listing, the applicant(s) shall not be arrested in lieu of any coercive process, which might have been issued by the trial court in the above mentioned case."
Referring the aforesaid, she submits that the applicant may also be granted the same relief as was granted in the case of identically situated co-accused.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that after thorough investigation, charge sheet was filed and, thereafter, the cognizance was taken and summon was issued to the present applicant. He next added that the order dated 15.12.2022 does not assail any illegality or infirmity as the same has been passed after considering the case of Satendar Kumar Antil (supra).
Matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.
Steps be taken within a week.
List/put up this matter along with Application U/S 482 No.9147 of 2022 in the third week of February 2023.
Till the next date of listing, the interim protection granted to the applicants in the Application U/S 482 No.9147 of 2022 shall also be available to the applicant in the present case.
Order Date :- 13.1.2023
Ram Murti
