# Lokendar and others v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 64
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-09-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 1722 of 2003
- **Bench:** K.N. Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lokendar-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-40282
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Procedure Code 1973, Section
482-Abuse of the process of the court
criminal
proceedings-quashing
ofseparate trial for other accused-on the
same evidence-resulted acquittal-hardly
any chance for conviction of present
applicant-held,
no
jurisdiction
to
continue the trail.

Held: Para 10

The above authorities are fully applicable
on the fact of the present case as on the
same evidence, the main accused and
other co-accused have been found to be
not guilty and acquitted for the charge.
There is hardly any chance for conviction
in respect of the present applicant. There
would be no use permitting the present
proceedings to continue.

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
64
submitting the compliance report to the
Court within one month of the receipt of
the copy this judgement and order.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.09.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE K.N. SINHA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 1722 of 2003

Virendra Pawar

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Chandra Kesh Misra
Sri Daya Shankar Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Criminal Procedure Code 1973, Section
482-Abuse of the process of the court
criminal
proceedings-quashing
ofseparate trial for other accused-on the
same evidence-resulted acquittal-hardly
any chance for conviction of present
applicant-held,
no
jurisdiction
to
continue the trail.

Held: Para 10

The above authorities are fully applicable
on the fact of the present case as on the
same evidence, the main accused and
other co-accused have been found to be
not guilty and acquitted for the charge.
There is hardly any chance for conviction
in respect of the present applicant. There
would be no use permitting the present
proceedings to continue.

(Delivered by Hon'ble K.N. Sinha, J.)

1. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C, has been filed for
quashing of the proceeding of Criminal
Case No. 3205/9 of 1999, under Sections
302/34 I.P.C, Police Station Kotwali,
District Muzaffarnagar.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this
application, are that the informant Sri
Virendra Kumar lodged the report on
23.11.1998 at police station Kotwali,
District
Muzaffarnagar,
which
was
registered as Case Crime No. 481 of
1998, under Section 302/34 I.P.C against
the applicant and others. The F.I.R is
annexure-1
to
this
application.
A
chargesheet
was
filed
against
the
applicant and three others. The case of the
applicant was separated and the case of
remaining accused namely, Sunil Pratap
Sharma alias Toni, Upendra Singh and
Raj Kumar alias Mintoo alias Karan
Singh were committed to the court of
session. Their trials proceeded and no
witness supported the case, with the
result, the session trial ended in acquittal.
The judgement of session trial is
annexure- 7 to the application.

3. The case of the present applicant
was separated and remained pending in
the court of Judicial Magistrate who has
issued warrant against the applicant.

4. The present application has been
filed on the ground that none of the
witnesses supported the case against the
other accused and the trial ended in
acquittal. There was no justification for
proceeding against the applicant, as the
result would be the same.

5. I have heard the learned counsel
for the applicant, learned A.G.A and also
perused the judgement, F.I.R, chargesheet
and evidence recorded in the trial of other
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Lokendar and others V. State of U.P.
65
co-accused in Session Trial No. 1285 of
1999 and S.T No. 560 of 1999.

6. According to the F.I.R., the
applicant and three others descended from
a Maruti Car at Ahuja Centre Tourist
Hotel and one of them, namely, Rajkumar
alias Mintoo called Mr. Kuldeep. As Mr.
Kuldeep came near the car, Rajkumar
alias Pintoo fired on him, who died on
spot. The Patrol party of police also
reached and head constable Rajpal Singh,
constable Shrikrishna and Pyare Lal also
came on the spot. During the course of
trial informants Virendra Kumar P.W-1,
Nitin Kumar PW-2, Prahalad P.W-3,
constable driver Harpal Singh, constable
Shrikrishna and constable Suresh Giri,
were examined. None of the witnesses of
fact, supported the case, which resulted in
acquittal.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
has
submitted
that
according
to
chargesheet, only those witnesses, who
have been examined, are the witnesses
against the applicant as well. They have
not supported the participation of the
main assailant and also the present
applicant. Thus there would be no
justification for permitting the trial to
continue.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
has relied upon a judgement in the case of
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of
Haryana and another, reported in
Judgment Today 2003 (3) SC 277,in
which, it has been held that High Court, in
exercise of its inherent powers, can quash
criminal
proceedings
of
F.I.R.
or
complaint and section 320 of the Code
does not limit or affect the powers under
section 482 of the Code.

9. In this very authority, a reference
was made to Madhavrao Jiwajirao
Scindia and others, Vs. Sambhajirao
Chandrajirao
Angre
and
others,
reported in Judgment Today 1988(1) SC
279, in which it has been held that while
exercising inherent power of quashing
under section 482 Cr.P.C., it is for the
High Court to take into consideration any
special features, which appear in a
particular case to consider whether it is
expedient and in the interest of justice to
permit a prosecution to continue. Where,
in the opinion of the court, chances of an
ultimate
conviction
is
bleak
and,
therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be
served by allowing a criminal prosecution
to continue, the court may, while taking
into consideration the special facts of a
case, also quash the proceedings.

10. The above authorities are fully
applicable on the fact of the present case
as on the same evidence, the main
accused and other co-accused have been
found to be not guilty and acquitted for
the charge. There is hardly any chance for
conviction in respect of the present
applicant. There would be no use
permitting the present proceedings to
continue.

11. Consequently, the application is
allowed and the proceedings of Case No.
3205/9 of 1999, State Vs. Virendra
Pawar, under Section 302/34 is hereby
quashed.
---------
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
66
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.10.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.14829 of 2000

Jang Bahadur Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri N.L. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226-Service
Law-departmental
proceedings-should
not normally be interfered-grounds of
interference-identified.

Held- Paras 8 and 12

In the light of the aforesaid observation
of the Supreme Court, it is quite obvious
that the High Court has no power to
appreciate the evidence and reach its
own contra conclusions. The interference
of the Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is possible only if it
is found that the proceedings against the
delinquent have been held in a manner
inconsistent with the Rules of natural
justice or in violation of statutory Rules
prescribing the mode of inquiry or where
the conclusions or findings recorded by
the authority is based on no evidence.

It is a settled view enunciated in several
Judgments of the Supreme Court that in
departmental proceedings, insofar as
imposition of penalty or punishment is
concerned, unless the punishment or
penalty imposed by the disciplinary or
appellate
authority
is
either
impermissible or such that it shocks the
conscience of the Court, it should not
normally
be
interfered
with
or
substituted by its own opinion and either
impose
some
other
punishment
or
penalty or direct the authority to impose
a
particular
nature
or
category
of
punishment of its choice. This view finds
formation in the case law of The
Regional
Manager
&
Disciplinary
Authority,
State
Bank
of
India,
Hyderabad
and
another
Vs.
S.
Mohammad Gaffar reported in J.T. 2002
(6) S.C., page 157.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1994 SC 215
1999 (f) Service Law Reporter 528
1996 (i)SSC page 82 (All)
JT 1995 (8) SC 65
JT 2002 (6) SC 157

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.)

1. The petitioner, a constable in
Civil Police, has challenged the impugned
orders dated 22.5.1992 (Annexure-17)
and 31.8.1992 (Annexure-18), passed by
respondents
no.
4
&
3
(Senior
Superintendent of Police, Agra and
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra
Range
respectively)
and
also
the
Judgment and Order dated 17.1.2000
(Annexure-19) passed by respondent no.1,
U.P. Public Service Tribunal Under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and has prayed for issuance of a writ in
the nature of certiorari to quash the same.

2. In short facts of the case disclosed
in the petition are that the petitioner in the
year 1987 was transferred from district
Allahabad to district Agra. While posted
at Agra, he took ten day's casual leaver
on 5.7.1990 to come to his village in
district Varanasi to see his ailing wife. He
had to report back on duty at Agra on
17.7.1990, but he made request for
extension of leave and could join the
duties at the Police Lines, Agra on