Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:26571
Court No. - 16
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2933 of 2024
Applicant :- Phoolchandra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And
Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Munni Lal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Shri Munni Lal, learned counsel for the applicant, and
the learned A.G.A.-I for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicant Phoolchandra against the impugned charge-sheet No.
02 dated 08.01.2021 and summoning order dated 03.01.2024
passed in Case No. 27140 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime
No. 381 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 308, 323, 504, 506,
352 I.P.C., P.S. Chinhat, District Lucknow, which is pending
before the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-III,
Lucknow.
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 mala fide intention for
the purposes of harassment.
After some arguments, 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 the light of
judgment of the Hon'ble the 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.
From 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 is 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 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 staying the execution of summoning
order/criminal proceeding, is refused. There is no merit in this
case. The applicant has ample opportunity to raise all the
objections at the appropriate stage.
In view of the submissions made by learned Counsel for the
parties, if the applicant appears and surrenders 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.
(Shamim Ahmed, J.)
Order Date :- 29.3.2024
A.Nigam
Digitally signed by :-
ANUJ NIGAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench