Urmila Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3514 of 2023 Appellant :- Urmila Singh Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Shekhar Agnihotri,Ravindra Kumar Yadava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant appeal has been moved on behalf of the appellant, Urmila Singh Chauhan with a prayer to quash the non bailable warrant dated 06.10.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow in F.I.R. No.69 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no offence against the appellant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Per contra, the learned AGA has contended that from the allegations made in the FIR prima facie offence is made out against the appellant. The innocence of the appellant cannot be adjudged at the pre trial stage. Therefore, the appellant does not deserve any indulgence. From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the appellant. At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283. From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continued. The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of non bailable warrant/ criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing of non bailable warrant is refused. There is no merit in this case. The appellant has ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage. However, the appellant is directed to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail within four weeks from today, and his prayer for bail shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law and as per law after hearing the Public Prosecutor. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal stands disposed of. Order Date :- 16.12.2023 Saurabh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench