Dismissed

Angad Prasad @ Angad Bharti v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2018A482/34670/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings alleging false FIR and mala fide prosecution. Court held prima facie offence was made out, refused quashing prayer for lacking merits, but directed bail hearing if applicant surrenders within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed. Applicant directed to apply for bail within 30 days of surrender.

Angad Prasad @ Angad Bharti Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34670 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Angad Prasad @ Angad Bharti Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mainuddin Ahamad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings initiated pursuant to the charge sheet dated 2.5.2018 whereupon cognizance has been taken against the applicant in Case No. 3683 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 0121 of 2018, under Sections 353, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Mau, district Mau pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case on the basis of false allegations made in the first information report lodged by the opposite party no. 2. The real fact is that the wife of the applicant was elected as Gram Pradhan and the informant has unnecessarily demanded illegal gratification from his wife, on the refusal of the same the present first information report has been lodged with mala fide intention to cause harassment. The Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the applicant in a perfunctory manner whereby the court below has taken cognizance of the offence in a pedantic manner withut applying judicious mind when no prima facie offence is made out against the applicant.

¶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. The applicant will have ample opportunity to prove his innocence.

¶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 of 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.

¶11

However, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case applicant appears before the court concerned in the aforesaid case within 30 days and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of in accordance with law after hearing the Public Prosecutor.

¶12

In case the applicant fails to surrender within the stipulated period the court below shall take appropriate action against him.

¶13

Order Date :- 27.9.2018 Shahnawaz

Angad Prasad @ Angad Bharti v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angad Prasad @ Angad Bharti 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

Arvind Vs State of U.P.

Murari @ Kshatrapal Goswami Vs State of U.P.

Deoraj Vs State of U.P.

Nazar Mohammad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Jyotsana Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kishor Vs State of U.P. and Another