Dismissed

Prashant Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Jun 2018A482/21233/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court refused prayer to quash criminal proceedings involving Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B IPC due to factual disputes not justiciable at this stage. However, applicant permitted to seek bail if he surrenders within four weeks citing specific precedents.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; applicant permitted to seek bail within four weeks upon surrender.

Prashant Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21233 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Prashant Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 3.5.2018 in Case Crime No. 1284/2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Rampur, District- Jaunpur, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that specific role of offence under Section 302 IPC is assigned to one Satyendra Kumar who has already been enlarged on bail by this court. It is also stated that applicant is neither named in the FIR nor his name has figured in any statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is stated that at the instance of the confessional statement of co-accused Vipin Kumar, name of applicant has surfaced without any role of offence attributed to him. Submission is that proceedings against applicant are an abuse of process of law.

¶8

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

¶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 applicant 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 .

¶10

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

¶11

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within four weeks 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.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 14.6.2018 shiv

Prashant Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Singh 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

Gorakh Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Anotehr

Kamlesh Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Pher Verma and 2 Others Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate,Shahganj and 2 Others

Yogendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajay Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rahul Vs State of U.P. and Anr.