Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sangeeta vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 May, 2023
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:35228
Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8111 of 2018
Applicant :- Smt. Sangeeta
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Pandey,Shiv Ganesh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Firoz Ahmad Khan
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
(C. M. Application No.IA/6/2023)
1. The instant application has been filed by the applicant for listing of the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Firoz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
3. Having regard to the nature and assertions made in the application, the instant listing application is allowed.
4. With the consent of parties, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is taken up for hearing today itself.
(Order on APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8111 of 2018)
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the entire record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the order dated 10.08.2018 passed by learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. IInd Faizabad whereby the Crl. Misc. Application No.61 of 2018 filed in Case No.7475 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No.200 of 2017, under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506, 306 I.P.C., Police Station Inayat Nagar, District Faizabad is rejected.
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 354, 323, 504, 506, 306 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 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 applicant, 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.
10. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing of the same 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 another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2023 Livelaw (SC) 233 and also having regard to the fact that the applicant is a woman.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.5.2023
Mahesh
