Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 754 (ALL)

Sintu Khan @ Tauqeek Khan v. State of U. P.

2010-02-26

ALOK KUMAR SINGH

body2010
Hon'ble Alok K. Singh, J.- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. who has put in appearance on behalf of State of U.P. 2. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 19.10.2008 arising out of Case Crime No.345 of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Goshaiganj, District Lucknow as also the summoning order dated 20.01.2010 pending before ACJM-II, Lucknow. 3. The charge-sheet has been filed on the basis of the accusation made in the F.I.R. and the evidence collected during investigation including the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The other averments are factual in nature that cannot be adjudicated in the present application. There does not appear to be any sufficient cogent ground for quashing of the entire proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused having similar allegation against him, has already been given some protection vide order dated 14.12.2009 (Annexure-7). It is submitted that the criminal proceeding was instituted in a malafide manner because first cousin of the petitioner fell in love with Sweta Mishra and in order to harass the newly wedded couple the F.I.R. containing bogus allegation that the petitioner had fired on the car of opposite party no.2 has been lodged. It is said that it is a no injury case. But the case under Section 307 I.P.C. was slapped. Section 307 I.P.C. is applicable or not this point may be raised along with the other objections contained in this petition by the petitioner, before the court below. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that except the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. the offences are triable by Magistrate and not so grave. Moreover the sole petitioner being law abiding citizen intends to participate in the proceedings after seeking bail. He also claims parity. 6. Without entering into the merits of the case in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is directed that if the applicant appears before the court concerned and applies for bail within one month from today, both the courts below shall dispose of the application expeditiously, if possible, on same day in accordance with the Full Bench decision of this Court Srimati Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 CBC page 705 and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P. reported in 2009 (1) JIC 677 & 2009 (2) Crimes 4 (SC). Thereafter, the trial court may permit the applicant to appear through counsel and raise his objection, if any, against the initiation of trial proceedings against him at the stage of framing of charges. This relief is being granted up to the stage of framing of charges only provided the applicant after securing bail (1) furnishes an undertaking to the satisfaction of the trial court that his counsel will remain present on his behalf and will represent him on each and every date, (2) he will not raise any objection as to the actual presence of the person who is facing trial, (3) an undertaking will also be given to the effect that he will be present before the court whenever called upon to do so at any stage. These directions are being accorded in the light of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Limited reported in 2001 Cri. Law Journal page 4250. 7. Till the aforesaid period of one month, bailable/non-bailable warrant, if any, shall be kept in abeyance. 8. With these observations this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.