Dismissed

Rustam and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 May 2018A482/16221/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings based on a charge-sheet, the Single Judge held that disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated. The High Court refused the prayer and dismissed the application as lacking merit.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing the proceedings based on the charge-sheet was refused; the application was dismissed.

Rustam and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16221 of 2018 Applicant :- Rustam And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Prabhakar Singh,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶3

Heard Lal Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶4

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to say the arrest of the applicants vide charge sheet dated 05.12.2017 in Case Crime No. 699/2017 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 336, 353, 427 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Alapur, District Budaun pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Budaun.

¶5

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that three FIRs were registered against the applicants and their family members for one incident by the police and one of the proceedings have been challenged before this Court in which an interim order dated 07.03.2018 has been passed. Perusal of the order passed by this Court dated 07.03.2018 shows that the proceedings were stayed against the applicants only on the ground that they were ladies. So far as the present applicants are concerned their case has been distinguished.

¶6

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. 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.

¶7

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

¶8

The application lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

¶9

Order Date :- 25.5.2018 S.K.

Rustam and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rustam and 4 Others 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

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