Dismissed

Atar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2018A482/1119/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant sought quashing of proceedings instituted for offences under the Essential Commodities Act and a cognizable offence. The bench held that disputed questions of fact preclude interference at this stage and that the applicant has alternative remedies for discharge in the trial court. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application for quashing the proceedings and charge-sheet was dismissed with no cost awarded.

Atar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1119 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Atar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings as well as the charge-sheet dated 1.7.2015 (State vs. Atar Singh) under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act as well as cognizable offence dated 18.7.2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 4 of 2015 at P.S. Rura, District Kanpur Dehat, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanpur Dehat.

¶7

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228, or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., declines to interfere with the impugned orders.

¶9

The application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶10

No cost.

¶11

Order Date :- 29.1.2018 S.Prakash

Atar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.P. State Sugar Corporation Vs the Xth A.D.J. and Others

Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Sathiaon Azamgarh Vs Dy. Labour Commissioner Gorakhpur and Another

Ujagir Vs the Collector Ghazipur and Others

Ramu Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Anand Varshney and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pappu Mishra Vs State of U.P.