This High Court application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of a charge sheet and cognizance order in a dispute between real brothers. The court held that prima facie case existed and factual disputes cannot be adjudicated at this stage, dismissing the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 42
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1951 of 2018
Applicant :- Mahaveer And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mr Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,Mr Avanish Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri M.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashish Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 22.7.2017 in Case Crime No.232 of 2017, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Dehat as well as cognizance order dated 17.11.2017 taken by the A.C.J.M.,. Ist, Kanpur Dehat.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is a dispute between the two real brothers and offence is compoundable one.
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 purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet and submitted that there appears to be offence under Section 325 I.P.C. and victim sustained injuries.
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. 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.
The prayer for quashing the charge sheet submitted in the aforesaid case as well as cognizance order is refused.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application lacks merit. It is accordingly , dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.2.2018
NS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be quashed as no offence is disclosed given the compoundable nature of the dispute.
Whether the prosecution was instituted with malafide intention for harassment without disclosing any offence against the applicants.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶11
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶11
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶11
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶11
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mahaveer and 2 Others
Ramesh Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
