Dismissed

Salman v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 May 2019A482/19421/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the applicant's application under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking to quash the charge sheet. The Court held that disputed facts could not be adjudicated summarily and the applicant was entitled to file a discharge application before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. refused. Application disposed of.

Salman Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19421 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Salman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Shiromani Shukla,Anubhav Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ram Shiromani Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and also perused the record.

¶6

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with a prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 16.8.2018 as Case No. 4164 of 2018, (State v. Aman) arising out of Case Crime No. 91 of 2018, under sections 498A , 354, 323,504,506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Qila, District Bareilly.

¶7

The 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 purpose 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 applicant. 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.PC. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶9

Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under section 239 or 227/228 Cr.PC. 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.

¶10

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.

¶11

With the above directions, present application is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 16.5.2019 ssm

Salman v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salman 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

Suresh Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Dalveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sazid @ Shaid @ Jaddu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aftab Alam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arsh @ Ashu Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Mamta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others