Allahabad High Court
Chhotkannu vs State Of U.P. & Another on 3 February, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ? Court No. - 29 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 502 of 2021 Applicant :- Chhotkannu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kumar Singh,Kapil Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Shri Jyotindra Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Ram Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.
By moving this application a prayer has been made to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 211/2020, pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Hardoi, arising out of Case Crime No. 963 of 2010, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 407 IPC and Section 3(2) (V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Atrauli, District Hardoi.
Learned Senior counsel while referring to the order dated 11.11.2019 submits that the FIR in this case was lodged alleging baseless and improbable allegations and Investigating Officer after investigation in right perspective has submitted closure report (final report).
It is further submitted that when the closure report was submitted by the Investigating Officer the trial court was not satisfied with the closure report and directed the further investigation as provided under Section 173(8)of Cr.P.C. but even after further investigation a 'final report' was submitted.
It is next submitted that on the basis of protest petition, which was filed by the opposite party no.2, the trial court without appreciating the evidence/ material on record, in a cursory way has summoned the applicant to face trial.
It is also submitted that no offence under Sections 3(2) (V) of SC/ST Act and under Section 307 of I.P.C. could be invoked even if the allegations of the FIR or statement of the witnesses are taken on their face value.
It is next submitted that all the proceedings pending before the trial court is nothing but the abuse of process of law and therefore the same be quashed.
Learned AGA, however, controverts the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and submits that in view of Section 14-A of SC/ST Act the application is not maintainable.
Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial and, therefore, the application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
From the perusal of the 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 applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only primafacie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the cases of 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 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843.
Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the Charge-sheet, summoning order as well as all proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused.
A seven judges Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) and in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail applications should be decided, expeditiously.
In backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, the application is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the Court below within 15 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 3.2.2021 Muk