Dismissed

Sushil and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2018A482/32853/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with S.C. & S.T. Act, the court found sufficient material to establish a prima facie offence. The prayer for quashing was refused, and the application was dismissed, though bail was directed to be heard if applied within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings refused; application dismissed; bail to be heard if applied within 30 days.

Sushil and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32853 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sushil And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Singh,Hari Om Sharan Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA and have taken through the record.

¶6

By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash entire criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to the charge sheet dated 22.11.2017 whereby cognizance has been taken against the applicants to face the trial in S.T. No. 79 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.126 of 2017 under Sections 452/323/504/506 IPC read with section 3 (2) (5) S.C. & S.T. Act, Police Station Kamasin District Banda pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (IInd)/Special Judge (S.C. & S.T.Act) Banda.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are maliciously being prosecuted in the present case on the basis of false allegations made in the first information report. The entire prosecution story is based on fabricated facts which has culminated into grave injustice with the applicants. The investigation has also been done in very pedantic and flimsy manner which has culminated into charge sheet. The prosecution of the applicants on the basis of false allegations is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and deserves to be vitiated.

¶8

Per contra learned AGA contended that the investigation was done in a fair and impartial manner and the investigating agency collected credible and clinching material on the basis of which charge sheet was submitted. There are sufficient material showing the complicity of the applicants.

¶9

From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments of the learned AGA for the State, it cannot be said that no offence has been made out against the applicants. Cognizance taken by the trial court, whereby the applicants have been summoned to face the trial suffers from no illegality and as such the prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused. At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the

¶10

material placed on record. Only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is made out or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines in the case State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1999 SCC(Crl) 426, and State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC(Crl) 192.where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power envisaged under section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

Having considered rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any justifiable ground for quashing the proceedings initiated pursuant to the charge sheet in the aforesaid case in exercise of its inherent powers conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. The application is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶12

However, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case , it is directed that in case applicants appear before the court concerned in the aforesaid case within 30 days and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 4.10.2018 Naim

Sushil and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil and 2 Ors. 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

Babban @ Babloo and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Verma Vs State of U.P.

Shalu Rathor Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Firoz Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Gaya Prasad and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Parihar Vs State of U.P. and Another