Dismissed

Raghavendra @ Raghavendra Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2018A482/60/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet, the High Court held that disputed questions of fact do not allow quashing at this stage. The court refused the prayer but directed quiescence for 60 days and expeditious bail consideration if the applicant surrenders.

What did the court decide?

Granted direction that no coercive action be taken for 60 days and that bail be considered expeditiously upon applicant's surrender.

Raghavendra @ Raghavendra Tiwari Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 60 of 2018 Applicant :- Raghavendra @ Raghavendra Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Savita Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Savita, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶4

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 11.03.2017 in case crime no. 15 of 2017 under Sections 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Musanagar, District Kanpur Dehat.

¶5

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that non bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant. The further contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.

¶6

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. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court 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.

¶7

The prayer for quashing the charge sheet in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶8

However, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below and apply for bail within 60 days, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably, on the same day .

¶9

For a period of 60 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶10

With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 23.1.2018 Jaswant

Raghavendra @ Raghavendra Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghavendra @ Raghavendra Tiwari 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

Raj Vishambhar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Kapoor Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sukkhu Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Ram Lal Gupta @ Sonu Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another