Allahabad High Court
Surjeet @ Surjeet Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. ... on 29 February, 2024
Author: Shamim Ahmed
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:19288
Court No. - 16
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1853 of 2024
Applicant :- Surjeet @ Surjeet Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Poojan Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Shri Shiv Poojan Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Bishwanath Nishad, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 06.01.2024 issued by Additional Chief Judicial Magsitrate, Court No.17, Barabanki in Criminal Case No.48/2024; State vs. Surjeet arising out of Case Crime No.96/2023, under Section 406 and 420 I.P.C., Police Station-Haidergarh, District-Barabanki alongwith entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.17 Barabanki as well as impugned chargesheet No.116/2023 dated 16.05.2023.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.
After some argument, learned counsel for the applicant confined his prayer to the extent that a positive direction may be given to learned trial court that if a bail application is moved before it by the applicant, the same may be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law in light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 as the punishment in the above case is less than seven years.
Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the prayer made by learned Counsel for the applicant and submits that a positive direction may be issued to the learned trial court to consider and decide the bail application, if moved before it by the applicant, expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the public prosecutor.
After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicant.
At the stage of issuing process the trial court is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283.
From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.
The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of non bailable warrant/ criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing of summoning order/chargesheet is refused. There is no merit in this case. The applicant have ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.
In view of the submissions and request made by learned Counsel for the applicant, if the applicant appears and surrender before the trial court and apply for bail within four weeks' from today, the prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the trial court in accordance with law after hearing the Public Prosecutor in light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).
With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed of.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 29.2.2024
Piyush/-
