Dismissed

Avnish@Bholu Patel and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC25 May 2018A482/15643/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings alleging malafide prosecution and misuse of SC/ST Act, the court held that disputed factual questions cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Prima facie an offence was made out, and the application was dismissed with the prayer refused.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the case and the charge-sheet is refused; the application is dismissed.

Avnish@Bholu Patel and Another Vs State of Up… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15643 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Avnish@Bholu Patel And Another Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bal Ram Gupta,Devendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard Sri B.R. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 22 of 2018, C.N.R. No. U.P.F.T. 010008032018 in case crime no. 224 of 2017 under sections 323, 504, 506, 354 (B), 452 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (Da), 3 (1) (Dha), 3 (1) (XI) S.C./S.T. Act, police station Malwan, district Fatehpur as well as charge-sheet dated 18.11.2017 submitted in the aforesaid case.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the victim of the present case has filed an affidavit before this Court which has been annexed along with the present application stating that his father wanted to misuse the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act for getting compensation.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶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. 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.

¶10

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

¶11

The application lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 25.5.2018 Shiraz

Avnish@Bholu Patel and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avnish@Bholu Patel and Another v. State of Up 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

Bhola Nath Pandey Vs Sadhana Pandey

Nadeem Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mudassir and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Chanchal Rastogi Vs C.B.I. A.C.B. Ghaziabad

Kishan Lal Vs State of U.P. and another

Hausla Alias Chet Narain Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others