Allahabad High Court
Imran And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 April, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56420 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1509 of 2025 Applicant :- Imran And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Atul Pandey, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.
2. Perused the record.
3. Applicants-Imran And Another, who are charge sheeted accused and facing trial before Court below, have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the framing of charges dated 18.10.2024 under section 376, 417, 323, 506 I.P.C. & 3(5) (1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 against the applicant no.1 and under section 354 I.P.C. against the applicant no.2 and all its Consequential Proceedings of Case Crime No.121 of 2023, (S.T. No. 1160/2023), P.S.- Kotwali, District-Pilibhit, pending in the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC (WP), Pilibhit, (State Vs. Imran and Another) and/or pass such order and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
It is further prayed that during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble Court, further proceedings including the arrest of the applicants, in Case Crime No.121 of 2023, (S.T. No. 1160/2023), P.S.- Kotwali, District-Pilibhit, pending in the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC (WP), Pilibhit, (State Vs. Imran and Another), may be stayed and/or pass such order and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that applicant-2 had moved discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. before Court below which was rejected vide order dated 24.09.2024. Copy of same is on record at page 52 of the paper book. However, the said order has not been impugned in present application.
5. It is thus contended by the learned A.G.A. that once the discharge application filed by applicant was rejected by Court below, vide order dated 24.09.2024 and the said order having not been challenged, therefore, the same has become final. According to the learned A.G.A. from perusal of record, it is apparent that the grounds raised in support of discharge claimed by applicant and the grounds raised in challenge laid to the framing of charge order passed by Court below are similar. As such, this Court will not permit a paradoxical situation to perpetuate. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. submits that no interference is warranted by this Court in present application.
6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are not only borne out from the record, but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.
8. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
9. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Imtiyaz