Disposed

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

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2018A482/34839/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused to quash the charge-sheet and criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as no manifest injustice was shown. However, upon an undertaking to appear within 45 days, no coercive steps were taken, and the trial court was directed to consider the bail application on its merits.

What did the court decide?

No coercive steps against applicants for 45 days; directed trial court to consider bail application on merit.

Shadab and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34839 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Shadab And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- A.C.Srivastava,Samir Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the chargesheet dated 07.05.2018 as well as the entire proceedings arising out of criminal case no. 1002 of 2018 (Case Crime No.-802 of 2017), under Sections- 506,420 & 376(D) I.P.C. Police Station- Partapur, District Meerut pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 7th District Meerut.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') is sought to be invoked for quashment of the criminal proceedings. The charge-sheet upon which the court below has already taken cognizance and judicial process is on as per the procedure, is being questioned on various grounds and pleas taken in the affidavit filed in support of the miscellaneous application.

¶8

It is well settled that power vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the object of advancement of the justice or in other words to secure the ends of justice. It is only where the judicial process is found to have been converted into instrument of oppression or harassment, this Court will step in to arrest manifest injustice. While malicious or malafide institution of proceedings would be cases warranting inherent exercise of power, the court has to be cautious that the powers should not invade area set apart for specific powers conferred under Cr.P.C . (Vinit Kumar and others v. State of U.P. 2017 (13) SCC 369).

¶9

Testing the facts of the instant case on the above set of the principles, I do not find that this case warrants any interference with the proceedings in question at this stage. Even on repeated query being made, learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any manifest injustice has occurred and that is likely to result in miscarriage of justice. The allegation in the first information report that have been found, prima facie, correct after investigation and have resulted in the charge-sheet cannot be said as not disclosing of an offence to hold that charge-sheet is ill founded. It is well settled that the High Court cannot convert itself into a trial court and dwell into the disputed

¶10

questions of fact. (Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. (2014) 7 SCC 215). In any case this is not a stage to conduct microscopic examination of facts and evidence to thwart the prosecution case.

¶11

Thus, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for at this stage of the proceedings in question.

¶12

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants request that his plea for bail may be accepted and appropriate directions may be issued to the court below in that regard.

¶13

I do not see that any specific direction is needed to guide the discretion of Court to grant bail or to refuse it and no direction is equally needed to give any time frame as no exceptional circumstance has been referred to in the present facts of the case.

¶14

However, plea for consideration of bail has been made with an undertaking that they shall appear before the court below within 45 days from today to show their genuineness on one hand and bonafide to co-operate with the trial on the other.

¶15

I hereby direct court concerned to consider the bail application on its own merit and dispose of the same keeping in view the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶16

In the interest of justice, it is hereby provided that keeping in view of the undertaking given on behalf of the applicants, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicanst for a period of 45 days from today in pursuance of the criminal proceedings in question.

¶17

This application, accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 9.10.2018 Sanjeev

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shadab 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

Rakesh Verma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Karan Singh and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Mohammad Shad @ Bhalu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Versha and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sajjan Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another