Partly allowed

Brij Mohan Pandey v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC1 Jun 2018A482/19845/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court refused to quash the charge sheet, holding that disputed facts preclude adjudication under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, it directed the lower court to consider bail and discharge applications and restrained coercive action for 45 days.

What did the court decide?

Refused quashment of charge sheet; directed consideration of bail/discharge; restrained coercive action for 45 days.

Brij Mohan Pandey Vs State of Up and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19845 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Brij Mohan Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.

¶6

The applicant seeks to quash the charge sheet dated 13.2.2013 arising out of crime no. 544 of 2012 under Sections 147, 148, 143, 283, 341, 353, 332, 336, 427, 504 IPC, Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Nandganj, District Ghazipur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that from the material brought on the record, no offence is disclosed against the applicant. The present prosecution launched against the applicant is wholly mala fide as such, the present proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for quashing the impugned charge sheet.

¶9

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.

¶10

The prayer for quashing the chargesheet in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶11

However, it is directed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, the same 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., 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) .

¶12

However, it is provided that in case, the applicant claims discharge at appropriate stage, the same shall be considered and disposed of within 30 days from the date of preferring discharge application in accordance with law, by the court concerned.

¶13

For a period of 45 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶14

Accordingly, the Application stands disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 1.6.2018 Jaswant

Brij Mohan Pandey v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brij Mohan Pandey v. State of Up 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

Yogendra Awasthi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mahesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rayess Vs State of U.P.

Munoor and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anju Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gauri Shankar and 6 Others Vs State of U..P. and Another