Disposed

Rohit Kumar @ Akash and 3 others v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2018A482/17325/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash a charge sheet arising from matrimonial disputes, the High Court held that factual disputes precluded quashing, but granted conditional bail if applicants surrendered within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing refused; leave granted to apply for bail if applicants surrender within 30 days.

Rohit Kumar @ Akash and 3 others Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17325 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rohit Kumar @ Akash And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhananjay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no.102/2016 dated 30.11.2016 under section 498-A, 323, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Bareilly, arising out of Case Crime No. 109/2016, under section 498A, 323, 377, 354-A, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, as well as the entire criminal proceeding against the applicants pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate Bareilly.

¶7

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. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶8

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 .

¶9

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶10

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 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.

¶11

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of

¶12

Order Date :- 9.7.2018 shiv

Rohit Kumar @ Akash and 3 others v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar @ Akash 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

Rahul Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Patel (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Richpal Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Zakir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prem Chandra Tiwari @ Prem Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Anothre