Dismissed

Shyam Lal and 5 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2018A482/3674/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An applicant sought quashing of charge sheet and cognizance order under Section 482 CrPC. The court found a dispute of facts and refused quashing, directing that if applicants surrender for bail, it be decided expeditiously citing Amrawati and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of charge sheet and cognizance order refused; direction for expedient bail consideration if applicants surrender.

Shyam Lal and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3674 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Shyam Lal And 5 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 19.09.2017 as well as cognizance order dated 16.01.2018 in Case No. 251 of 2018 9State Vs. Shyam Lal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 376/201, under Sections 147,148, 452, 323 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Katra, DIstrict Mirzapur pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that no offence against the applicants is disclosed. Present case has been filed with a mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment. He further contended that the entire allegations made against the applicants are false and fabricated. The applicants are innocent and they have not committed any offence.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in passing impugned order by the trial court.

¶9

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. Dispute of facts is to be examined by the trial court on the basis of evidence, not by this Court at this stage.

¶10

All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the charge sheet as well as congnizance order in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶12

However, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably on the same day in view of the settled law laid by 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.

¶13

With the above directions, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of finally.

¶14

Order Date :- 7.2.2018/Sharad/-

Shyam Lal and 5 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Lal and 5 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Rohit Ruhela and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Lakhan Singh and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shiv Murat and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

sakalraj and another Vs State of U.P. and another

Siddiq Ahmad @ Mohammad Saddiq and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Smt. Pravesh Vs State of U.P. 1 Ors.