Single judge rejected a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking to quash charge sheet proceedings. The court held that a prima facie case existed and disputed facts precluded interim relief, directing the applicant to seek discharge from the trial court.
Application for quashing of proceedings under Sections 418, 420, 467, 468 IPC is refused.
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. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19246 of 2008
Applicant :- Mahaveer Tiwari And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dubey,Rajesh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Suresh Chandra Pandey
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Smt. Poonam Singh Sengar, learned A.G.A.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Charge sheet No.121 of 2008 dated 11.6.2008 in Case Crime No.228 of 2008, under Sections 418, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., Police Station Hathras Gate, District Hathras.
The contention of learned 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.
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 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 applicants have 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 (through counsel) for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the aforesaid proceedings is refused.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off. Order Date :- 10.7.2019 Dev/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the case discloses a prima facie offence.
Whether disputed facts and malafide intention claims can be adjudicated at the stage of interim bail under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶9
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶9
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶9
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Mahaveer Tiwari And Others
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
