Single judge dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of trial proceedings. The court held that the case was distinguishable and rejected the applicant's argument based on parity with a co-accused.
Application for quashing of the criminal proceedings was 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. - 16
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35490 of 2018
Applicant :- Vipin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the respondent-State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the applicant for quashing the proceedings of case no.33/9/18 arising out of case crime no.545 of 2017 under Sections 376, 313, 506 and 506 of the IPC, P.S.Medical College, DistrictMeerut, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, District-Meerut.
Perusal of the charge-sheet as well as the material collected in the course of investigation clearly disclose the commission of the offences. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot appraise or appreciate evidence or judge the disputed defence of the accused. At this stage, the validity of the charge-sheet can be tested only by determining whether a prima facie commission of an offence is disclosed.
The limits of the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been long settled by the Hon'ble Supreme court. There is good authority in the law to fortify the said propositions. Reference can be made with profit in this regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. No ground for interference in the charge-sheet is made out.
The case of the applicant is completely distinguishable from that of the co-accused. He cannot be granted the benefit of the order passed by this Court in favour of the co-accused on the ground of parity.
Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.10.2018 Ashish Tripathi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether an order quashing proceedings against a co-accused grants benefit of parity to the present applicant
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Vipin
State Of U.P.
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
