The High Court refused to quash the charge sheet in a criminal case involving Sections 406, 506 IPC. No offence was ruled out, and disputed facts could not be adjudicated. However, bail shall be considered if the applicant surrenders within 30 days.
Quashing of charge sheet refused; bail to be considered if applicant surrenders within 30 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15513 of 2018
Applicant :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Sharma,Vikas Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the prayer clause during the course of the day.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 03.01.2017 in Special Case No. 248 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 724 of 2016, under Sections 406, 506, 323 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Hathras, District- Hathras, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
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 applicant at this stage. 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 prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
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 applies 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.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .
Order Date :- 4.5.2018 Lbm/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet discloses an offence against the applicant and warrants quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the applicant should be granted relief to enable consideration of bail if he surrenders within the specified period.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶9
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶9
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶9
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶11
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶11
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Kumar
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
