Allahabad High Court
Harendra Singh @ Raman And Others vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:36977
Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4016 of 2023
Applicant :- Harendra Singh @ Raman And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Arunendra Nath Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Kumar
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
1. Heard Sri Arunendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. The instant application has been filed by the present applicants for quashing the impugned charge sheet No.352/2022, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, dated 02.11.2022, arising out of Case Crime No.262/2022, Police Station Lonar, District Hardoi as well as summoning order dated 03.03.2023.
3. Pursuant to order dated 25.04.2023, passed by this Court, the applicant no.1, namely, Harendra Singh @ Raman and opposite party No.3, Ankita Devi are present in person and they have been identified by their counsels. The applicant no.1 is willing to settled the present dispute through the process of mediation, however, opposite party no.2 does not want to get her dispute resolved through the process of mediation.
4. 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.
5. 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 498A, 323 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act. 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.
6. 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.
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 applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 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.
11. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the proceedings under challenge is refused as this Court does not find any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the same. There is no abuse of court's process either.
12. However, the applicants will have an opportunity at the appropriate stage to move an application for discharge taking therein all the pleas factual and legal which may be available to them, in accordance with law. In case, such an application is moved before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court shall dispose of the same by a speaking and reasoned order strictly, in accordance with law.
13. It is needless to mention that if the applicants apply for grant of bail, the learned trial Court 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.
14. It is made clear that the amount of Rs.15,000/- deposited by applicant no.1, as is evident from the office report dated 05.05.2023, shall be refunded to applicant no.1 in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 24.5.2023
A.Dewal
