Dismissed

Smt. Chanchal and 4 others v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2018A482/37348/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this quashing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court refused to quash the impugned orders as the complaints involve disputed questions of fact. The Court noted the charges are not punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years and directed a decision on bail applications within 45 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of impugned orders refused. Bail applications to be decided within 45 days. No coercive action for 45 days.

Smt. Chanchal and 4 others Vs State of U.P. and another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37348 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Chanchal And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abdul Khalik 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 impugned order dated 14.12.2017 in Complaint Case No. 813/2017 (Smt. Usha Tiwari Vs. Smt. Chanchal and others) as well as impugned order dated 25.08.2018 in Criminal Revision No. 20/2018 (Smt. Chanchal and others Vs. State of U.P.) under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Malawan, District Etah.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that appellant no. 1 Smt. Chanchal has filed F.I.R. against Subodh Tiwari husband of Opposite Party No. 2 Smt. Usha Tiwari and his family members. In the counter blast, this complaint has been filed maliciously with false allegation.

¶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. 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.

¶10

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the impugned orders in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶11

None of the aforesaid offences against applicants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years.

¶12

In view of order passed by this Court on 23.01.2018 on Application under Section 482 No. 43217 of 2017 (Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State) , it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on

¶13

the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. For a period of 45 days, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 1.11.2018 Sharad/-

Smt. Chanchal and 4 others v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chanchal and 4 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

Lalji Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aman Yadav @ Kallu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Faizal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asraf Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Jayant Kumar Sircar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vitash Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another