Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge sheet. The court held that the allegations disclosed an offence and disputed facts could not be adjudicated at this stage, citing Supreme Court precedents.
Prayer for quashing the charge sheet dated 22.7.2016 and entire consequential proceedings refused and application dismissed.
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. - 1958 of 2018
Applicant :- Deshraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mr Gajendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Charge Sheet (L+A) Singular
Heard Sri Gajendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, 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 22.7.2016 and entire consequential proceedings in Case No.142 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No.424 of 2015, under Sections 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Bisauli, District Budaun.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is husband of opp. party no.2 as the marriage between them was solemnized in the year 2009. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant 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.
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 applicant. 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 as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case based on the charge sheet is refused.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application lacks merit. It is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.2.2018/NS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present prosecution for offences under Sections 498A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act discloses any cognizable offence warranting quashing of the charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶9
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶9
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶9
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Deshraj
State Of U.P.
Ramesh Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Ramesh Sinha
Parties & counsel
