Disposed

Dharmveer and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 May 2018A482/17949/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for alleged offences under the IPC, the court held that no offence was clearly non-existent based on facts requiring trial. The quash prayer was refused. However, the court directed that if applicants surrender within 30 days and apply for bail, their prayer will be considered per established law.

What did the court decide?

Quash prayer refused. Direction to surrender within 30 days to avail bail consideration.

Dharmveer and 2 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. - 17949 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Dharmveer And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Mohan 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 17.8.2017 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 8833 of 2017 (State Vs. Dharmveer and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 503 of 2017, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Aliganj, District Etah, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 18, Etah.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants are 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 involve factual dispute 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 proceedings of the aforesaid case based on the charge-sheet 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

However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶12

It is made clear that the applicants will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 22.5.2018 Mini

Dharmveer and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmveer and 2 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

Aakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Moni Sahu Vs Naresh Sahu

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyendra Kumar Rai and 2 Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 6 Ors.

Sachin @ Rinku Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Another