Dismissed

Dev Kumar @ Pappu Pandey and 3 others v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC28 Sept 2018A482/34765/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings alleged to be based on false malice, the High Court found no justifiable ground for quashing. It refused the quashing prayer but directed the applicants to apply for bail within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash proceedings dismissed; applications for bail directed to be considered if filed within 30 days.

Dev Kumar @ Pappu Pandey and 3 others Vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34765 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Dev Kumar @ Pappu Pandey And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas 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 the entire criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to the charge sheet dated 23.3.2018 whereupon cognizance has been taken against the applicants to face the trial in Case Crime No.36 of 2018 under Sections 325/323/504/506 IPC, Police Station Baberu District Banda pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Baberu District 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. The innocence of the applicants cannot be adjuged at the pre-trial stage. The applicants will have sufficient time to prove their 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 Harya na 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 pursuant to the 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

Order Date :- 28.9.2018 Naim

Dev Kumar @ Pappu Pandey and 3 others v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dev Kumar @ Pappu Pandey 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

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

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