Dismissed

Subhash Babu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 May 2018A482/14730/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge refused to quash a charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. finding disputes of fact too substantial for review at this stage. However, the Court directed that bail applications be decided urgently and stayed coercive action for 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash refused; coercive action stayed for 60 days; bail application to be decided urgently.

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

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14730 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Subhash Babu And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. in opposition and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash Charge Sheet No. 206 of 2017 dated 10.12.2017 in Case No. 108 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 240 of 2017, under Sections 354, 354B, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station - Gonda, District - Aligarh, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Iglas, District - Aligarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that from the material brought on the record, no offence is disclosed against the applicants. The present prosecution launched against the applicant is wholly mala fide as such, the present proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court. He further contended in the present case, FIR has been lodged with false allegation, due to enmity.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet and submitted that the material on record is sufficient justifying the filing of charge sheet in the aforesaid offence by the court below.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the impugned charge sheet in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶12

However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicants are

¶13

punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. Police has submitted charge sheet. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court / court concerned.

¶14

In view of order passed by this Court on 23.01.2018 in Application under Section 482 No. 43217 of 2017 (Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State), it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.

¶15

For a period of 60 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants.

¶16

With the aforesaid directions, the instant application stands disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 7.5.2018 I. Batabyal

Subhash Babu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Babu and Another 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

Shakeel Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Suresh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brajvir Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Rama Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sageer alias Guddu and 10 others Vs State of U.P.