Vinay Kumar v. State), which is connected

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Sri Rahul Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No.4595 of 2022 (State vs. Pankaj Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.0034 of 2021, under sections 4/25 Arms Act, P.S. Rani Ki Sarai, District- Azamgarh, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh including the charge-sheet no. A/23 of 2021 dated 21.04.2021 and cognizance order dated 20.07.2022.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that on the basis of certain issues which has been raised by him, precisely in respect of weapon in shape of knife and its length which has been described as 10 angul, but at the same time it is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the width of knife has never been described and the implication of applicant in pursuance to sections 4/25 Arms Act in Case Crime No.34 of 2021 is not sustainable in the eye of law. For substantiating his arguments, learned counsel for applicant relied upon the judgement rendered by Division Bench of this Court in case of Criminal (Capital) Appeal No.8134 of 2008 (Vinay Kumar vs. State), which is connected with two others Criminal (Capital) Appeal Nos.8138 of 2008 and 8369 of 2009, decided on 05.08.2010, wherein certain discussion has been made by Division Bench of this Court in respect of measurement of size of knife which is 8 angul, which would be about 4 inches and the proportionate of 8 angul, which has been determined as 4 inches in presence case, the weapon recovered from the applicant is of 10 angul, which is near about 5 inches.

4. Learned counsel for applicant also relied upon the judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Irfan Khan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No(s). - of 2024 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 12510 of 2023, decided on 03.12.2024, wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that on going through the allegations as set out in the charge-sheet, there is not even a whisper that the appellant was carrying the buttondar knife of the dimensions stated above, for the purpose of sale or test and as such proceedings sought to be undertaken against the appellant in pursuance to impugned charge-sheet for the offence under sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act is abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that the case of applicant is squarely covered with the dictum pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court and there is also not even whisper regarding to the purpose of having knife mentioned by the concerned investigating officer and there is hardly any independent witness mentioned at the time of preferring charge-sheet against the applicant, so far as incident is of broad day light at the crossing of police station- Rani Ki Sarai, district- Azamgarh from where the above-mentioned knife has been recovered from the possession of applicant.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for applicant and submitted that the entire arguments whatsoever has been raised by learned counsel for applicant is subject matter of trial and the same cannot be determined or adjudicated by way of conducting mini trial in the instant proceedings, which has preferred at the behest of applicant in shape of instant application before this Court.

7. After having rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, the arguments so raised by learned counsel for applicant has been substantiated with the dictum pronounced by Division Bench of this Court and one judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court; in the case of Criminal (Capital) Appeal No.8134 of 2008 decided by Division Bench of this Court, the same has been relied only for calculating measurement of the knife recovered from the applicant and in the case of Irfan Khan (supra) decided by Hon'ble Apex Court, through which the entire proceeding has been set-aside by Hon'ble Apex Court in pursuance to sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, wherein the recovery of no fire arm was shown at the time of filing charge-sheet, the implication of applicant or appellant in case of Irfan Khan (supra) is with regard to the fact that there is recovery of only knife and the time of taking cognizance the same has been taken up by learned court concerned over the charge-sheet preferred under sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act.

8. Sections 54 and 59 of the Arms Act deals with the fire arm only and that was the basis of strucking down the entire proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No.477 of 2022, but in the instant matter the implication of applicant is under section 4/25 of Arms Act, which does not deals with the fire arm only, but certain prohibited arms in the category of section 25 of Arms Act has been given and as such judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Irfan Khan (supra) is not largely applicable in the instant matter wherein the applicant has only been implicated under sections 4/25 of Arms Act.

9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments raised by learned A.G.A. seems to be justified that while entertaining the arguments raised by learned counsel for applicant is directly commensurated the mini trial in respect of measurement of weapon, implication of applicant, which shall be strictly deals with the proof of evidence along with statement of prosecution witnesses which is still to be conducted by learned trial court and as such the grounds taken up through the instant application for quashing of the entire proceedings along with charge-sheet and summoning order cannot be quashed at this stage and the grounds are amenable before learned trial court itself.

10. The instant application stands dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Saif

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Sri Rahul Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No.4595 of 2022 (State vs. Pankaj Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.0034 of 2021, under sections 4/25 Arms Act, P.S. Rani Ki Sarai, District- Azamgarh, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh including the charge-sheet no. A/23 of 2021 dated 21.04.2021 and cognizance order dated 20.07.2022.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that on the basis of certain issues which has been raised by him, precisely in respect of weapon in shape of knife and its length which has been described as 10 angul, but at the same time it is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the width of knife has never been described and the implication of applicant in pursuance to sections 4/25 Arms Act in Case Crime No.34 of 2021 is not sustainable in the eye of law. For substantiating his arguments, learned counsel for applicant relied upon the judgement rendered by Division Bench of this Court in case of Criminal (Capital) Appeal No.8134 of 2008 (Vinay Kumar vs. State), which is connected with two others Criminal (Capital) Appeal Nos.8138 of 2008 and 8369 of 2009, decided on 05.08.2010, wherein certain discussion has been made by Division Bench of this Court in respect of measurement of size of knife which is 8 angul, which would be about 4 inches and the proportionate of 8 angul, which has been determined as 4 inches in presence case, the weapon recovered from the applicant is of 10 angul, which is near about 5 inches.

4. Learned counsel for applicant also relied upon the judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Irfan Khan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No(s). - of 2024 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 12510 of 2023, decided on 03.12.2024, wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that on going through the allegations as set out in the charge-sheet, there is not even a whisper that the appellant was carrying the buttondar knife of the dimensions stated above, for the purpose of sale or test and as such proceedings sought to be undertaken against the appellant in pursuance to impugned charge-sheet for the offence under sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act is abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that the case of applicant is squarely covered with the dictum pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court and there is also not even whisper regarding to the purpose of having knife mentioned by the concerned investigating officer and there is hardly any independent witness mentioned at the time of preferring charge-sheet against the applicant, so far as incident is of broad day light at the crossing of police station- Rani Ki Sarai, district- Azamgarh from where the above-mentioned knife has been recovered from the possession of applicant.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for applicant and submitted that the entire arguments whatsoever has been raised by learned counsel for applicant is subject matter of trial and the same cannot be determined or adjudicated by way of conducting mini trial in the instant proceedings, which has preferred at the behest of applicant in shape of instant application before this Court.

7. After having rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, the arguments so raised by learned counsel for applicant has been substantiated with the dictum pronounced by Division Bench of this Court and one judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court; in the case of Criminal (Capital) Appeal No.8134 of 2008 decided by Division Bench of this Court, the same has been relied only for calculating measurement of the knife recovered from the applicant and in the case of Irfan Khan (supra) decided by Hon'ble Apex Court, through which the entire proceeding has been set-aside by Hon'ble Apex Court in pursuance to sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, wherein the recovery of no fire arm was shown at the time of filing charge-sheet, the implication of applicant or appellant in case of Irfan Khan (supra) is with regard to the fact that there is recovery of only knife and the time of taking cognizance the same has been taken up by learned court concerned over the charge-sheet preferred under sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act.

8. Sections 54 and 59 of the Arms Act deals with the fire arm only and that was the basis of strucking down the entire proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No.477 of 2022, but in the instant matter the implication of applicant is under section 4/25 of Arms Act, which does not deals with the fire arm only, but certain prohibited arms in the category of section 25 of Arms Act has been given and as such judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Irfan Khan (supra) is not largely applicable in the instant matter wherein the applicant has only been implicated under sections 4/25 of Arms Act.

9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments raised by learned A.G.A. seems to be justified that while entertaining the arguments raised by learned counsel for applicant is directly commensurated the mini trial in respect of measurement of weapon, implication of applicant, which shall be strictly deals with the proof of evidence along with statement of prosecution witnesses which is still to be conducted by learned trial court and as such the grounds taken up through the instant application for quashing of the entire proceedings along with charge-sheet and summoning order cannot be quashed at this stage and the grounds are amenable before learned trial court itself.

10. The instant application stands dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Saif