Dismissed

Jittan and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2019A482/10323/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of charge-sheet and criminal proceedings alleging mala fide prosecution. Court refused quash due to disputed facts but directed no coercive action for 45 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail per cited precedents.

What did the court decide?

Quashing refused. Applicants granted 45 days to appear and apply for bail without coercive action if they do so.

Jittan and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10323 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Jittan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rabindra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Virendra Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

This case has been listed peremptorily today, however, counsel for the applicants has sent his illness slip and counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 is present.

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the Charge-Sheet dated 16.06.2016 and cognizance order dated 03.01.2017 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 20 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 178 of 2016, under Sections 323, 427, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Chaubeypur, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Varanasi.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that on 25.12.2015 at about 3:00 PM, the applicants forcibly entered in the house of the victim and assaulted him with lathi danda. On account of assault made by the applicants, victim Laxman has received injuries on his person and has been medically examined.

¶8

From the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicants and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.

¶9

Learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, impugned charge-sheet and cognizance order as well as entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶10

Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.

¶11

Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶12

The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance order as well as entire proceedings is therefore refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear/surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of settled law laid down 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 in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

¶14

For a period of 45 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 4.12.2019 Nadim

Jittan and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jittan and 2 Others v. State of Up 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

Anand Kumar Gupta and 2 others Vs State of U.P. and another

Sanjay Kumar (Manager Unnati Sonography Centre) and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Savita Patel @ Dhanni Devi Vs Suresh Kumar Patel and 2 Others

Alham Siddki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Kashyap and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Maya Devi and 5 Others Vs State of Up and Another