Allahabad High Court
Prabhakar Maurya And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 19 May, 2023
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:34990
Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4955 of 2023
Applicant :- Prabhakar Maurya And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Singh,Manish Mehrotra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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 24.05.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in rejection of discharge case no.RN3787 of 2021, Criminal Case No.626 of 2021 in Case Crime No.19 of 2021, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Rajesultanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar and the revisional order dated 05.01.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Revision No.137 of 2022, C. N. No.141 of 2022, C.N.R. No.U.P.A. No.10027392022 and also quashing the charge sheet dated 28.01.2021 in Case Crime No.19 of 2021, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Rajesultanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar and summoning order dated 06.04.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that accused/ applicants are innocent, who have 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 147, 323, 406, 452, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C. He 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. His next submission is that the learned trial court, vide order dated 06.04.2021, proceeded to take cognizance and consequently, the applicants came to be summoned to stand trial.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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 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.
11. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the impugned charge sheet as well as impugned summoning 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.
12. However, it is needless to mention that if the applicants apply 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.
13. With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.5.2023
Mahesh
