Disposed

Lakhpat and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jun 2018A482/21130/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge high court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as they involved disputed facts. However, the court directed that the applicant's bail prayer would be reconsidered if they surrendered within 45 days, citing relevant precedents.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; bail application to be considered if applicant surrenders within 45 days.

Lakhpat and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 53 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21130 of 2018 Applicant :- Lakhpat And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶4

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.169 of 2017 (S.T. No.1465 of 2017), Ajayveer vs. Lakhpat and others, under Section 395 I.P.C., Police Station- Rajpura, District- Sambhal, as well as the summoning order dated 8.12.2017, pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Sambhal at present Chandausi.

¶5

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that a first information report prior in point of time at the instance of applicants has been lodged and only as a counterblast an FIR has been lodged in which final report was submitted whereafter upon protest petition summons have been issued against the applicants. Submission is that the allegations are inherently improbable and the proceedings are abuse of process of law.

¶6

The petition is opposed by learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves adjudication of a 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 entire proceeding of the aforesaid case 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 45 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

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

¶12

Order Date :- 11.6.2018 Ashok Kr.

Lakhpat and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhpat and 5 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

C/M Deen Dayal Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Jamrawan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Man Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gyanendra Dhar Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

D.C Bhaiya Lal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Sudhir Kumar Ojha Vs State of U.P. and Another