Facts
The applicant sought to quash the charge sheet dated 20 August 2016 and the cognizance order dated 4 February 2017 in a case alleging offences under Sections 379 and 411 IPC.
Source reference: para. 3He relied on an earlier High Court order directing investigation to proceed in accordance with law and providing that any arrest be made in accordance with Sections 41 and 41A CrPC and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
Source reference: para. 4The applicant submitted that he had cooperated with the investigation and, instead of pressing for quashing, asked the Court to direct the trial court to extend the benefit of Category A under Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
Source reference: paras. 5–6The State did not oppose that request.
Source reference: para. 7Issues
1. Whether the applicant should receive the procedural benefit applicable to Category A cases under Satender Kumar Antil.
Source reference: para. 62. Whether the charge sheet and cognizance order should be quashed.
Source reference: para. 3Law Applied
Section 482 CrPC provides the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, which the applicant invoked to seek relief.
Source reference: para. 3Sections 41 and 41A CrPC, together with Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, govern the conditions and safeguards for arrest.
Source reference: para. 4In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, the Supreme Court identified Category A as offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less that do not fall within Categories B or D, and set out a graduated process for appearance, warrants, and consideration of bail for eligible accused persons who were not arrested during investigation and cooperated with it.
Source reference: para. 6Reasoning
The applicant relied on his asserted cooperation during the investigation and sought the Category A procedure after the charge sheet had been filed and cognizance taken.
Source reference: paras. 5–6The State raised no objection, and the Court disposed of the application by directing the trial court to grant the benefit described in Satender Kumar Antil.
Source reference: paras. 7–8The order does not discuss the merits of the allegations or independently determine whether the charge sheet or cognizance order was legally sustainable.
Source reference: no citationHolding
The Court disposed of the Section 482 CrPC application with a direction to the trial court to grant the applicant the benefit applicable to Category A cases under Satender Kumar Antil.
It did not quash the charge sheet or the cognizance order.
Source reference: para. 8Acts & Sections Cited
7 provisions across 5 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732
Indian Penal Code, 18602
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19851
Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 20021
Companies Act, 20131
Original Court PDF
MOHMMAD NASIRvsSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
