In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings, the court held that a prima facie case exists. The prayer for quashing was refused, but bail was allowed if surrender and application are made.
Prayer for quashing refused; applicant allowed to appear and surrender for bail consideration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 43
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11979 of 2019
Applicant :- Shivam Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Prakash Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding as well as charge-sheet dated 1.12.2018 in Case No.10102 of 2018, pertaining to Case Crime No. 329 of 2018 (State Vs. Shivam Jaiswal), under Sections 353, 427, 504, 506 I.P.c. Police Station Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motive. He has not committed any offence as alleged against him. The respondent no.2 along with some other persons used to go to the shop of the applicant for demand of illegal gratification and when the applicant refused to fulfill the said demand, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Statements of independent witnesses, namely, Pradeep Kumar Jaiswal and Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, clearly shows that no offence is made out against the accused applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant requested for the benefit of Judgment of Hon'ble Apex 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 .
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. argued that the applicant is indulged in illegal activities and when the raid was made the said occurence took place.
A perusal of record shows that the applicant has been summoned to face trial on the basis of charge sheet and material in the case diary. The Magistrate dealing with the matter at this stage has to see only prima facie case and it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants nor pointed out by the learned counsel for applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash charge sheet dated 1.12.2018 and the proceedings impugned of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, it will be disposed of on merit in accordance with law. It is clarified that no expressed or implied opinion has been expressed by this Court on merit in the matter.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.3.2019 Ram Murti
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge-sheet and proceeding under Sections 353, 427, 504, 506 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether a prima facie case exists against the applicant in the FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶7
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶7
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shivam Jaiswal
State Of Up
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
