Dismissed

Loola and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2018A482/34138/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings instituted against the applicants. The Court held that no justifiable ground existed for quashing as a prima facie cognizable offence was made out, dismissing the application under inherent powers.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; stay on coercive steps for 30 days; applicants directed to apply for bail within 30 days.

Loola and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34138 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Loola And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh Parmar 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 the further proceedings pursuant to the charge sheet dated 30.1.2018 whereupon cognizance has been taken against the applicants vide order dated 22.3.2018 to face the trial in Special Case No. 53 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.325 of 2017 under Sections 452/323/504/506 IPC, read with section 3 (1) (10) of S.C.& S.T.Act Police Station Kurara, District Hamirpur .

¶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. Prima facie cognizable offence is made out against 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 is 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 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.

¶10

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

¶11

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

However, it is provided that for a period of thirty days only, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶14

Order Date : 12.10.2018

¶15

Naim

Loola and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Loola and 3 Others 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

Santosh Kumar @ Sanjeet Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anotehr

Ashwani Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Banvari Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Jahid Vs State of U.P.

Babli Pasreecha and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mohammad Umar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.