Dismissed

Umesh Sahu and 3 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC16 May 2018A482/16693/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An applicant sought quashing of criminal proceedings and a charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court refused to quash the proceedings as disputed questions of fact existed but granted liberty to apply for bail within 30 days of surrender.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed; liberty granted to apply for bail within 30 days of surrender.

Umesh Sahu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16693 of 2018 Applicant :- Umesh Sahu And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Awadhesh Prasad, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶4

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings as well as impugned charge sheet dated 08.06.2017 in Criminal Case No. 1879 of 2017(State Vs. Umesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 214 of 2017, under Sections 147, 452, 387, 323, 504, 506, 427, IPC, Police Station Chirgaon, District Jhansi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, District Jhansi as well as to quash the impugned congizance order dated 25.11.2017, passed by the learned Magistrate in the aforesaid case.

¶5

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.

¶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 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

¶7

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 .

¶8

The prayer for quashing the charge-sheet as well as criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶9

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrenders before the court below within 30 days and no more from today and applies 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 Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶10

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .

¶11

Order Date :- 16.5.2018 VKG

Umesh Sahu and 3 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Sahu and 3 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

Prabhakar Dubey and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Benchelal Vs State of Up and Anotehr

Vijay Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naresh and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Navab Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Badshah Alias Jamaluddin and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another