Allahabad High Court
ARIF @ MOHD AREEB AND ANOTHERversusState of UP AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
The High Court held that the application for quashing under Section 482 CrPC must be refused as no abuse of process or other recognised ground for quash exists.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 28‑02‑2024, the cognizance and summoning order dated 03‑05‑2024, and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 480 of 2024 (State vs Hamad @ Hamdu Maya & Ors). They alleged that no offence was made out against them and that the prosecution was instituted with a mala fide intention to harass. The Court examined whether any of the Supreme Court‑recognised grounds for quashing existed and found none, concluding that there was no abuse of the court’s process. Consequently, the application for quashing was refused, but the applicants were permitted to appear before the trial court within 30 days and move an application for discharge. The Court directed that no coercive measures be taken against the applicants during this period and outlined the procedure to be followed by the trial court depending on whether it finds the summons justified or not. The application was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the charge sheet and summons can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the ground of abuse of process.
- Whether the prosecution was instituted with mala fide intent to harass, justifying quash.
- Whether the trial court has the inherent power to discharge the accused before framing of charges.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 323, 427, 452, 504, 506
Subjects
- Section 482 CrPC
- quash of criminal proceedings
- abuse of process
- discharge application
- summoning order
- inherent powers of court
- harassment allegation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30517 of 2024
Arif @ Mohd Areeb And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashutosh Gupta, Mohd. Faizan Ali, Shiv
Shankar Kaithal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 81
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and
perused the record.
2. The present application has been filed to quash charge sheet dated
28.02.2024 and cognizance and summoning order dated 03.05.2024 as well
as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 480 of 2024 (State Vs. Hamad @
Hamdu Maya & Ors) arising out of case crime no.195 of 2023 under
sections- 147, 148, 427, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kareili,
District-Prayagraj.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no offence is made out
against the applicants and that the present prosecution has been instituted
with a mala fide intention to cause harassment.
4. In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme Court
which may justify the quashing of the complaint or the impugned
proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused, as no abuse of the
process of the Court is made out. The summoning court is vested with
sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage of framing
of charges, if, for reasons to be recorded, it considers the charge to be
groundless.
5. As requested, the applicants are permitted to appear before the concerned
court within 30 days from today through counsel and move an application
seeking discharge.
6. No coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicants for a period
A482 No. 30517 of 2024
2
of 30 days from today or till the filing of the discharge application,
whichever is earlier.
7. If the concerned court, after hearing the counsel for the accused, is
persuaded to take the view that the accused ought not to have been
summoned and that the charge is groundless, it shall not abstain from
discharging the accused merely on the ground that the material available at
the time of summoning is the same as that available at the time of
consideration of the discharge application.
8. On the other hand, if the court, after hearing the counsel for the accused,
holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and that the
material on record does not indicate the charges to be groundless, it shall
pass an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter in accordance
with law. It shall also be at liberty to adopt such measures as are permissible
in law to secure the presence of the accused.
9. In case, applicant or his counsel does not appear to press the discharge
application despite being afforded opportunity given by the trial court, the
trial court shall proceed to decide the same on merits after considering the
material available on record.
10. With the aforesaid observations, this application stands disposed of.
September 16, 2026
Akbar
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD AKBAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…