Disposed

Babloo Singh and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC21 May 2018A482/17651/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge refused to quash the proceedings in an FIR registered under secular and SC/ST Act provisions. The Court found disputed facts could not be adjudicated at the quashing stage but directed that the applicants surrender within 30 days for bail consideration based on cited precedents before disposing the application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash refused; application disposed of with direction to consider bail if applicants surrender within 30 days.

Babloo Singh and 2 Others Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17651 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Babloo Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Padmaker Pandey 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

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 08.07.2009 alongwith cognizance order dated 08.09.2009 in Case No. 1576 of 2012 (old No. 6438 of 2009), arising out of Case Crime No. 199 of 2009, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3(i) x SC/ST Act, Police Station- Sachendi, District-Kanpur Nagar, pending before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-VI, Kanpur Nagar.

¶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.

¶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 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 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 :- 21.5.2018 Lbm/-

Babloo Singh and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babloo Singh and 2 Others 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

Ram Badai Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amit Kumar Dubey (Assistant Loco Pilot) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lavi @ Lalit Vs State of U.P.

Aakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amarjeet Singh Taneja Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Moni Sahu Vs Naresh Sahu