The Court refused the application to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It directed that if the applicants surrender within 45 days, their bail prayer will be decided according to settled legal principles regarding bail.
Application to quash proceedings refused; directed to surrender within 45 days for bail consideration.
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. - 16498 of 2018
Applicant :- Bittu Ram And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Prasad Mahant Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 20.12.2012 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 526 of 2013 (State Vs. Govind Yadav & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 544 of 2012, under Sections- 147, 148, 143, 283, 341, 353, 332, 336, 427, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Public Property (Prevention) Damages Act, 1984 and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Nandganj, District- Ghazipur, pending in the court of C.J.M., Ghazipur.
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 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 applicants 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 proceedings 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 applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days and no more from today and apply for bail, their 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 Supreme 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 :- 7.6.2018 A. Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution instituted with malafide intention is distinguished as no offense is disclosed.
Whether the charge sheet filed under various IPC sections be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabExplained¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalExplained¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaExplained¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqExplained¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶10
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶10
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
Bittu Ram And Anr
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
