Dismissed

Ram Raj Yadav and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2018A482/9932/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet was dismissed as it involved disputed questions of fact. No offence was held to be excluded at this stage. The applicants were allowed 30 days to appear and surrender for bail consideration with a moratorium on coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Directing applicants to appear and surrender within 30 days for bail consideration; no coercive action to be taken during this period.

Ram Raj Yadav and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9932 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Raj Yadav And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the charge sheet dated 15.8.2017, in criminal case no.4484 of 2017 (State Vs. Ram Raj Yadav and others) in Case Crime No.262 of 2017 under Sections 324, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Gopiganj, District Sant Ravi Das Nagar (Bhadohi), pending in the Court of C.J.M., Sant Ravi Das Nagar (Bhadohi).

¶7

The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of charge sheet is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶11

For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 28.3.2018 Hasnain

Ram Raj Yadav and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Raj Yadav and 2 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

Mohan Kushwaha and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Noor Mohammad and Another Vs State of U.P.

Upendra Kumar Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gurvinder Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another