Disposed

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

Allahabad HC11 Jun 2018A482/21136/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash prosecution under IPC and SC/ST Act alleging malafide intent, the court refused the prayer. However, it granted a direction for bail consideration if the applicants surrender within 45 days and apply for bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; direction for bail consideration granted upon surrender within 45 days.

Pappu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 53 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21136 of 2018 Applicant :- Pappu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Kesari 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 charge sheet dated 20.5.2017, as Session Trial No.53 of 2018 (State vs. Pappu and others), arising out of Case Crime No.132 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and under section 3(i)(da)(x) S.C.S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, Police Station- Manda, DistrictAllahabad, pending before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Allahabad.

¶5

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. It is also stated that there are no injury report on record and the proceedings itself have been initiated only in order to desist the applicants from asking for return of the amount which had been received by the complainant.

¶6

At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves adjudication of a factual dispute and appraisal of evidence.

¶7

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 .

¶8

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

Order Date :- 11.6.2018 Ashok Kr.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu and 2 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

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

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