Dismissed

Benchelal v. State of Up and Anotehr

Allahabad HC15 May 2018A482/14281/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash charge sheet alleging offences under Sections 307 and 506 IPC. Court held that question of offence made out is disputed question of fact. Quashing refused. Applicant directed to surrender within 30 days for bail consideration.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Applicant directed to surrender within 30 days for bail.

Benchelal Vs State of Up and Anotehr — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14281 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Benchelal Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anotehr Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet no. 26 of 2018 dated 28.1.2018 and the consequential order taking cognizance in criminal case no. 145 of 2018 (State Vs. Sahdev Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 285 of 2017, under Sections 307, 506 IPC, Police Station Kurra, District Mainpuri, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist, Mainpuri.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution lodged against the applicant is malicious inasmuch as both in the FIR and in the statement of the injured witness, the solitary allegation of use of fire arm that caused the injury is against Puran Singh and Sahdev Singh and not against the present applicant. It has therefore submitted that the charge sheet under Section 307 IPC cannot arise as the ingredient for such allegation is not present against the applicant.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand submits that at present the charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 506 and 307 IPC. In so far as the offence is alleged under Section 506 IPC, both in the FIR and in the statement of the injured witness, the applicant has been clearly named and specific allegation has been made against him.

¶9

Therefore, it has been submitted that it cannot be said at this stage, no offence is made out against the applicant either under Sections 307 and 506 IPC.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that at this stage, no firm conclusion can be drawn as to whether any charge is made against the applicant and not specially when the charges are yet to be framed.

¶11

If it is the case of the applicant that no offence is made out even under Section 506 IPC despite specific allegation made in the FIR and the statement of the injured witness in view of other evidence that may be existing on prosecution file, then in such case the applicant may be entitled to seek discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

¶12

All argument that are being raised by learned counsel for the applicant, at this stage, do appear to be premature for consideration as they may require recording of conclusion of fact. However, once the applicant has been enlarged on bail, it would be further open to the applicant to seek discharge.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case based on the charge-sheet is refused.

¶16

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days and no more from today and apply for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶17

However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶18

It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above.

¶19

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .

¶20

Order Date :- 15.5.2018 Mini

Benchelal v. State of Up and Anotehr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Benchelal v. State of Up and Anotehr

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

Ram Jagi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Smt. Anuradha Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Nitu Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Prabhakar Dubey and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vijay Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nadeem Vs State of U.P. and Another