Disposed

Parmatma Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2018A482/17702/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings arising from an FIR alleging rape was dismissed as the case involved disputed questions of fact requiring examination. The court directed that if applicants surrender within 45 days and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and they may subsequently seek discharge.

What did the court decide?

Prayers for quashing dismissed. Conditional direction that if applicants surrender within 45 days and apply for bail, such application will be considered according to law, opening the door to a discha

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

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17702 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Parmatma Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Prasad Yadav 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 dated 11.10.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 594 of 2017 (State Vs. Pintu Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 54 of 2017, under Sections- 376 Gh, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Basti, pending in the court of C.J.M., Basti.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the allegations made in the FIR are patently false and inherently improbable. He further submits that occasioned by an earlier FIR lodged by the wife of the applicant no. 2 against the father and brothers of the opposite party no. 2 alleging attempt to rape, the present FIR has been lodged against the applicant no. 1 who is fatherin-law of the opposite party no. 2; applicant nos. 2 and 4 who are the brothers-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 and; applicant no. 3 who is the son of applicant no. 2.

¶8

It is further submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are inherently improbable and unbelievable. It is further stated that there is pending dispute with respect to the property between the parties which has given rise to the present FIR. Also, it is submitted that the FIR itself was lodged after seven months and other than statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is no other evidence to support the FIR allegations.

¶9

Sri Rajeev Kumar Pandey, learned AGA on the other hand submits that at present, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is consistent with the FIR allegations and it is pre-mature to reach any conclusions or findings of factual aspect.

¶10

Without drawing any inference as to the improbability of the allegations and without entering into the merits of the case, this much is clear, at present, the prosecution cannot be quashed owing to factual dispute that are required to be examined.

¶11

Having considered the arguments so advanced, at present, it appears difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that no case is made out against the applicants and or that the entire allegations are so completely and inherently improbable that the prosecution be quashed, at this stage.

¶12

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.

¶13

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶14

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.

¶15

Once the applicants have been thus enlarged on bail, it would be open to them to seek discharge at appropriate stage, which application if filed shall be decided in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 2.7.2018 Abhilash

Parmatma Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmatma Singh 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

Charan Singh and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nand Kishore and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Afjal @Babalu Vs State of Up and Another

Sandeep Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pratap Chanadra Verma and another Vs State of U.P. and another

Suresh Babu Diwakar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another