The High Court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order framing charges. The Court held that mere framing does not result in conviction and since counsel could not show the order lacked application of mind, no interference was required.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 26
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35079 of 2018
Applicant :- Indradev Yadav And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Firdos Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed by the applicants against the order dated 14.08.2018 by which the charges have been framed against the applicants.
Mere framing of charges does not result in conviction of the applicants in the trial. The applicants have ample opportunity to defend their case and come out innocent getting acquittal in the case.
Learned counsel for the applicants even on repeated query could not point out how charges are not made out and the order suffers from non application of mind.
In view of the above, no interference, at this stage, is required.
This application, is accordingly, dismissed .
Order Date :- 10.10.2018 IrfanUddin
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interference is called for under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order framing charges.
Whether the order framing charges suffers from non-application of mind.
Indradev Yadav And 4 Others
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
