Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Haleem And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 15 May, 2023
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:33293
Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4720 of 2023
Applicant :- Mohd. Haleem And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Abdul Samad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
1. Heard Ms. Divya Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Abdul Samad, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rajeev Kumar Verma, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the entire record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the charge sheet No.433 of 2020 dated 19.10.2020 filed in F.I.R./ Case Crime No.0077 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Raebareli as well as cognizance order dated 05.03.2021 passed in Criminal Case No.2499 of 2021 titled as State vs. Wali Ahmad and others arising out of F.I.R./ Case Crime No.0077 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Raebareli, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that accused/ applicants are innocent, who have been falsely implicated in this case due to some ulterior reason.
4. Her further submission is that the content of the first information report does not disclose any ingredients, which are essential to constitute offence under Sections 506, 504, 468, 467, 420, 419 I.P.C. She has also submitted that even during investigation, no credible evidence could be collected against the present accused/ applicants. Despite, this fact, a charge sheet came to be laid mechanically against the applicants.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants, 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 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.
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 A.G.A. has submitted that the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record including the first information report and the charge sheet laid against the present applicants, 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 as well as impugned cognizance order 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 applicants apply for grant of bail, the learned trial court concerned 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 :- 15.5.2023
cks/-
