Allahabad High Court
Kedar Nath Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. And ... on 4 May, 2022
Author: Suresh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2218 of 2022 Applicant :- Kedar Nath Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prince Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
For the orders proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to opposite party no. 2, therefore, issuance of notice against him is dispensed with.
By means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have sought following reliefs:-
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 113 of 2019 (State Vs. Kedar Nath Singh and others) arising out of charge sheet no. 1 of 2018, dated 25.04.2018 submitted by the police in the aforesaid sessions trial relating to Case Crime No. 45 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504 & 506 IPC and Sections 3 (2) (v), 3 (1) (d), 3 (1) (dha) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Munshiganj, District Sultanpur."
Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. Further submission is that there are contradictions in the statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Further submission is that there is no credible and cogent evidence is available against the petitioners.
It is next submitted that no offence as described in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation has taken place and the whole story as narrated in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the witnesses has been cooked and manufactured, therefore, the court below has materially erred in summoning the petitioners, as such the orders are liable to be set aside.
Before arguing the case on merits, learned counsel for the petitioners while pressing the present petition submits that the court below while summoning the petitioners has materially erred and did not follow the dictum of law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases that summoning in criminal case is a serious matter and the court below without dwelling into material and visualizing the case on the touch stone of probability should not summon accused person to face criminal trial. It is further submitted that the court below has not taken into consideration the material placed before the trial court along with charge sheet and, therefore, the trial court has materially erred in summoning the petitioners.
So far as quashing of charge sheet and entire proceedings is concerned, 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 the petitioners. All the submission made relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. 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 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 and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the petitioners have got a right of discharge according to the provisions prescribed in Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings and charge sheet is refused.
So far as regard the cognizance and summoning order passed by the learned trial court concerned, at the stage of taking cognizance, trial court can simply form an opinion as to whether the case is fit for taking and committing the matter for trial or not. In the present case, learned trial court clearly expressed his opinion that he perused all the record and clearly indicated that the material placed before him is sufficient to proceed the case. Thus, the cognizance order is not a proforma order. Every aspect is touched by learned trial court and petitioners failed to adduce any evidence which caused prejudiced to them. So, the cognizance and summoning order is perfectly valid and there is no occasion to quash the same.
However, it is provided to the petitioners to appear before the court below and if they apply for bail, then their bail application shall be considered and decided in accordance with law propounded by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021 for the offence as mentioned in category "C". In this case Hon'ble the Apex Court has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific directions need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex Court.
Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 4.5.2022 Virendra