Application to quash chargesheet dismissed as factual disputes cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Applicants directed to surrender within 45 days and apply for bail under established case law.
Prayer to quash proceedings dismissed. Applicants permitted to surrender within 45 days to seek bail.
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. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19714 of 2018
Applicant :- Nand Kishore And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Pathak,Harshit Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the chargesheet dated 29.12.2016 as well as proceeding of Case No. 1754 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 610 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 354, 427, 504, 506, 509 and 379 of I.P.C., Police Station- Tarya Sujan, District- Kushi Nagar.
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. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
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 .
The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
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 applies for bail, his 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.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .
Order Date :- 8.6.2018 Prakhar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the chargesheet discloses an offence against the applicants such that proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be quashed.
Whether the applicants are entitled to bail after failing to quash proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
2004 (57) ALR 290 Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nand Kishore And 6 Others
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
