Dismissed

Shani v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jun 2019A482/22542/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the applicant's prayer to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order, holding that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 CrPC. However, the Court stayed coercive action for 30 days if the applicant surrenders and applies for bail within that timeframe, with expedited bail consideration.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings dismissed. Coercive action stayed for 30 days conditional on surrender and bail application; bail application to be expedited if conditions met.

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

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22542 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri I.P.S. Rajpoot, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 24.6.2018 as well as cognizance order dated 13.1.2016 arising out of Case Crime No.197 of 2014, under Sections 147, 149, 332, 336, 341, 253 and 427 IPC and 2/3 Prevention of Public Property Damages Act, P.S. Rokabganj, District Agra pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist Agra and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.

¶7

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the accusedapplicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the accused was not named in the FIR, his name has come into light in the statement of co-accused Rajan Singh which was recorded on 13.1.2019 after one and half months of the occurrence. He has no criminal history. Hence, the charge-sheet needs to be quashed.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet stating that sufficient evidence has been gathered by the I.O. during investigation against the applicant on the basis of which charge sheet has been submitted hence, quashing of charge sheet should be refused.

¶9

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482

¶10

Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9 . The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶11

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶12

However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided in view of the 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 reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 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 applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶13

With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 11.6.2019 Neeraj

Shani v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shani 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gitesh Sharma and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kumar Vs State of Up and 02 Other

Mohd. Sharif Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Harijan @ Mahesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.