Dismissed

Dwarika Singh Rajpoot and another v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2018A482/26363/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and an impugned order, the High Court held that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Finding that a cognizable offence is prima facie made out against the accused, the court rejected the prayer for quashing.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was refused; application rejected.

Dwarika Singh Rajpoot and another Vs State of U.P. and another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26363 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Dwarika Singh Rajpoot And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saghir Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri N.K. Verma, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the Special Case No.31 of 1994 (State vs. Roop Kishre and others) under sections 406, 408, 409, 411, 467, 468, 471, 120B and section 13 Prevention of Corruption Act arising out of Case Crime No.59 of 1989 as well as the impugned order dated 07.05.2018 P.S. Narhauli (Highway), District Mathura,.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has produced an order dated 13.2.2018 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Application u/s 482 No.4621 of 2018 (Satendra vs. State of U.P. and another) in which protection has been granted to the accused, copy of the same is taken on record. It is further contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated. If proceedings are allowed to continue that would amount to an abuse of process of court.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet.

¶9

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9 . The disputed defense of

¶10

the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶11

Investigating Officer after having investigated the case had found the involvement of the present accused in this matter. From the contents of the FIR and other evidence on record, it is prima facie, proved that a cognizable offence is made out against the accused.

¶12

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused. The application is accordingly rejected.

¶13

(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 2.8.2018 AU

Dwarika Singh Rajpoot and another v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dwarika Singh Rajpoot and another 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

Alakesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anita Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ahsan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Pradeep Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anshul Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others