This court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings. It held that disputed questions of fact existed and a prima facie case was made out against the applicants, refusing the prayer for quashing.
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. - 1
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22408 of 2017
Applicant :- Atul Pandey & 2 Othersrs Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Tripathi
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Brajesh Kumar Chaturvedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 2 and Sri Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet no. 3 of 2017 dated 29.5.2017 and entire proceedings of Case No. 2330 of 2017 registered as Case Crime No. 154 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 308, 504, 452 IPC, P.S. Gadwar, District Ballia pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Ballia.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the three F.I.Rs. have been lodged from the side of the applicant against the informant of the case and his family members i.e. Case Crime No. 155 of 2017, 156 of 2017, 157 of 2017 for different offences and all of them have been ordered to be investigated by C.B.C.I.D. The order passed by the State Government on 10.3.2017 for investigation of all the cases by the C.B.C.I.D. has been challenged by the opposite party no. 2 in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 7213 of 2017 (Girish Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and 13 others), which has been disposed of today by this Court imposing heavy cost on opposite party no. 2 because in the present case charge sheet has been submitted by the C.B.C.I.D. against the accused persons in spite of the order of this Court dated 3.5.2017 for staying the transfer of the investigation. He further states that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case.
Learned A.G.A. as well as opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet and submitted that there are injured persons and participation of the applicants cannot be ruled out. The present charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants by the local police and learned court below has taken cognizance against the applicants. So far as rest of the accused-persons are concerned, C.B.C.I.D. has already submitted charge sheet against them and the above mentioned F.I.Rs. have been lodged against the informant and his family members from the side of the applicants which is under investigation. The investigation has already been directed to be concluded by this Court within four weeks in the said writ petition filed by the petitioner.
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. 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 proceedings of the aforesaid case based on the charge-sheet is refused.
The application lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 9.8.2018 A.P. Pandey
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 308, 504, 452 IPC should be quashed on the basis of a prima facie case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶10
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶10
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶10
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶10
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Atul Pandey & 2 others
State Of U.P. & Another
Ramesh Sinha
Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
