Allahabad High Court
Mohd Shakib vs State Of Upand Another on 28 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:97175
Court No. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16782 of 2024
Applicant :- Mohd Shakib
Opposite Party :- State Of Upand Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shabana Nizam,Zia Uddin
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.Mr Mohammad Naseem, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 today, which is taken on record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 81 of 2023, (State Vs Mohd Shakeel and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 153 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 IPC, P.S. Jaitpura, District Varanasi including the Charge sheet dated 14.07.2023 as well as cognizance order dated 26.09.2023 and the NBW and proceedings of 82 Cr.P.C. dated 26.4.2024.
3. 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 malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment.
4. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure PVT Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, State of M.P. Vs Awadh Kishore Gupta and others [(2004) 1 SCC 691, and Dr. Monica Kumar and Another Vs State of UP and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 781. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, before the court below and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.
5. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as charge sheet is refused.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicants in view of the judgment in the case Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present application is disposed of with the direction that in case the applicants filed bail application before the court below, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the court below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).
8. With the above observations, this application u/s 482 is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 28.5.2024
RavindraKSingh
