Allahabad High Court
Udairam Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 October, 2023
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190606
Court No. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31483 of 2023
Applicant :- Udairam Sharma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Shukla,Vipul Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 4462 of 1993 (State vs. Udairam Sharma), under Section 409 IPC, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, pursuant to impugned charge sheet No. 24 of 1994 dated 22.01.1994 as well as impugned cognizance order dated 17.12.1994, arising out of Case Crime No. 364 of 1993, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Shahjahanpur. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceeding in pursuance of Case No. 4462 of 1993, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur (State vs. Udairam Sharma) as well as stay the issuance of Non Bailable Warrant dated 19.06.2023 in Case Crime No. 364 of 1993, under Section 409 IPC against the applicant, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Shahjahanpur.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that instant first information report was lodged against the applicant under Section 409 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District- Shahjahanpur. Applicant challenged the aforesaid proceeding before this Hon'ble Court by filing Writ Petition No. NIL of 1993. This Court vide order dated 21.12.1993 provides that 'Until further orders of this Court the petitioner Udai Ram Sharma shall not be arrested in case crime no. 364 of 1993, U/s 409 I.P.C, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Shahjahanpur'. Thereafter, charge-sheet was filed but no notice was given to the applicant to participate in the court proceedings and on 19.06.2023, NBW was issued against him. He next submits that issuance of NBW and non summoning of the applicant is abuse of process of Court and is liable to be set-aside.
4. Per contra, learned AGA opposes the submissions made by counsel for the applicant and submits that applicant has intentionally not participated in the court proceedings and on perusal of the order-sheet, it appears that a copy of the stay order was submitted before the trial court and therefore, the trial court in view of the stay order passed by this Court continuously fixing dates in the proceedings but bailable warrant was issued against the applicant on 15.06.2023 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.1375-1376 of 2013. He next submits that all other submissions made by counsel for the applicant are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be examined at this stage.
5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. From perusal of record, it appears that applicant has not mentioned the writ petition number, which was earlier filed before this Court, in which stay order was passed. Moreover, when he was asked to provide the number of the writ petition then counsel for the applicant stated that he is unable to provide the writ petition number as the same is not traceable. From the record, it is also clear that stay order passed by this Court was also submitted before the trial court and the trial court on account of that stay order regularly fixing dates since 1995. Other submissions made by counsel for the applicant are disputed questions of fact and sitting under 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction, this Court has no power to examine the facts.
6. It is a very old case pending since 1994 and applicant was enjoying stay order whereas, charge-sheet had been submitted in the court long back, but to avoid court proceeding applicant did not appear before the court, applicant has not taken care of proceeding since last 30 years. Applicant was employed in Krishi Beej Bhandar and he may be considered a person of having knowledge of legal proceeding, no interference is warranted.
7. However, if applicant approaches the court concerned and moves a discharge application, his application shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, preferably within a period of two months, from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
8. With these observations, the instant application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 4.10.2023
Aditya
