Allahabad High Court
SYED MOHD. AFZAL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed off/Decided on merits
- Bench
- PANKAJ BHATIA
Holding
The application under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed as misconceived due to the absence of requisite annexures.
Summary
The applicants, Syed Mohd. Afzal and another, filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a charge‑sheet dated 24‑05‑2022 in a case involving offences under Sections 498‑A, 323, 504, 506, 465 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They alleged that the investigating officer ignored their evidence, that a prior petition challenging the charge‑sheet was dismissed, and that a discharge application filed thereafter was rejected mechanically, prompting a revision that was also dismissed. The State opposed the prayer, contending that the applicants’ approach was casual. The court observed that the discharge application and the order on it were not annexed to the present application, rendering the petition incomplete and misconceived. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for quashing the charge‑sheet and staying the proceedings.
Issues considered
- What is the propriety of entertaining an application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing a charge‑sheet when essential documents are not annexed?
- Whether the court can quash the criminal proceedings on the ground of alleged procedural irregularities in the investigation.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 465, 498-A, 504, 506
Subjects
- quash
- charge sheet
- Section 482 CrPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- discharge application
- procedural irregularity
- criminal proceeding
Judgment
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74201
Court No. - 13
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9691 of 2024
Applicant :- Syed Mohd. Afzal And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sabih Ahmed,Chandra Prakash,Surya
Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Umair Ahmad Khan, Advocate as
well as Sri Abdullah Ramzi Khan on behalf of opposite party
no.2 is taken on record.
2. Heard.
3. The instant application has been filed by the applicants with
prayer to quash the impugned charge-sheet no.01 of 2022 dated
24.05.2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 0520 of 2020 under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 465 of Indian Penal Code and
3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Para, District-
Lucknow, which has been filed before learned Additional
Judicial Magistrate-VI, Lucknow; for quashing of entire
criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No.431/2022 (State
Versus Syed Mohd. Afzal & another) including cognizance and
summoning order dated 06.08.2022 registered against
petitioners on the basis aforesaid impugned charge sheet, now
transferred and pending before learned Additional Judicial
Magistrate-VI, Lucknow; to stay the proceeding of Criminal
Case No.81197/2022 (State Versus Syed Mohd. Afzal &
another) pending before learned Additional Judicial Magistrate-
VI, Lucknow.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant
was dragged in the prosecution in question. As a result,
investigation was conducted and the documents as well as
evidence provided by the applicant were not considered
properly by Investigating Officer. He further submits that earlier
a petition was filed challenging the charge-sheet, which was
disposed of with liberty to file discharge application at the
appropriate stage. In this connection, discharge application was
filed, which was rejected in the most mechanical manner on
22.08.2024 and then a revision was filed, which was also
dismissed by the revisional Court on 01.10.2024, hence, the
present application is filed.
It is also submitted that learned trial Court failed to consider the
facts, which were mentioned in the discharge application, thus,
indulgence of this Court is required.
5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the
complainant vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicants.
They jointly submit that approach of the applicants is the most
casual and no order, as dismissed by which the discharge
application of the applicants was dismissed by learned trial
Court, is annexed with the present application.
6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and going through the contents of the application as well
as other relevant enclosures, it is evident that neither the
discharge application nor the order passed on the said
application is annexed with the present application.
7. Accordingly, the application is misconceived and the same
stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.11.2024
Arpan
Digitally signed by :-
ARPAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench
Checking your session…