Partly allowed

Shakeela v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2018A482/32163/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chief Judicial Magistrate Bijnor refused application to quash charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C., finding prima facie case. However, directed bail consideration within two months and barred coercive measures until then.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; bail to be considered if application moved within two months of surrender; coercive measures stayed temporarily.

Shakeela Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32163 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Shakeela Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Akram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge sheet dated 17.8.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3628 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No.277 of 2012, u/ss 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, P.S.Dhampur, District Bijnor pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor.

¶7

Heard applicant's counsel and learned AGA.

¶8

Entire record has been perused.

¶9

All the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.

¶10

The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.

¶11

Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.

¶12

The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely

¶13

improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.

¶14

Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.

¶15

The submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

¶16

The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.

¶17

However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case after surrendering in the court below an application for bail is moved on behalf of the accused within two months from today, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

¶18

In the aforesaid period or till the date of appearance of the accused in the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to.

¶19

It is made clear that if this order is not availed by the accused within stipulated period of time, no time extension application shall be entertained.

¶20

It is further clarified that for the present this order has been passed only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved in this Court.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed off. Order Date :- 10.10.2018 CPP/-

Shakeela v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakeela 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

Varun Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nand Lal Yadav and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Kumar Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Prakash Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kavita Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another