Allahabad High Court
Sarvesh Kumar Verma And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 31 May, 2024
Author: Shamim Ahmed
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:41801
Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5098 of 2024
Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Verma And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for State-respondent and perused the record.
2. The instant Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicants with a prayer to stay the operation and implementation of impugned summoning order dated 04.11.2017 issued by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambekdar Nagar in complaint case no.310 of 2017 under section 147, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC at police station Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkar Nagar and judgment and order dated 04.09.2023 passed by Additional Session Judge (FTC-II), Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 78 of 2021 as well as bailable warrant issued on 16.05.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a complaint case no.310 of 2017 was lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicant as a counter blast to escape himself from molestation but opposite party no.2 was acquitted in the said case. Being aggrieved the prosecutrix filed an appeal and the court concerned issued bailable warrant against the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants also prays for permission to appear through counsel before the concerned trial court within a period of three weeks from today and move an application claiming discharge on behalf of the applicants and this Court may direct the trial court to decide the application so moved by the applicants.
5. Learned A.G.A. has disputed the aforesaid contentions made by learned counsel for the applicants but he has not opposed the request made by learned counsel for the applicants to move a discharge application before the trial court through counsel.
6. All the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. In the process of invoking its inherent jurisdiction, this court cannot be persuaded to have a pre trial before the actual trial begins. The submissions made by the learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case.
7. The quashing of the charge sheet and the entire proceedings can also be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and also in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 make the position of law in this regard clear.
8. In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Apex Court which might justify the quashing of charge sheet/summoning order/impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The trial court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.
9. As requested by learned counsel for the applicants, the permission to appear through counsel before the concerned trial court within a period of three weeks from today and move an application claiming discharge on behalf of whom this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved, is granted. The concerned trial court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits in accordance with law within a period which shall not exceed a period of four months from today.
10. With the above observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of.
(Shamim Ahmed, J.)
Order Date :- 31.5.2024
Arnima
