Dismissed

Ashraf @ Buddhu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jun 2019A482/22600/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of charges and proceedings due to alleged false implication. The court held that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated at this stage and prima facie, a cognizable offence appears to be made out.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings refused; applicant granted 30-day window to surrender for bail consideration; no coercive action during this period.

Ashraf @ Buddhu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22600 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ashraf @ Buddhu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Yadav,Yashpal Yadav

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri I.P.S. Rajpoot, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge-sheet dated 10.09.2017, cognizance order dated 06.03.2018 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 539 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 0163 of 2017 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 and 325 I.P.C., Police Station Gambhirpur, District Azamgarh.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case; no offence is made out under the aforesaid sections which have been mentioned in the F.I.R. nor any credible evidence has been collected by the I.O. and the charge-sheet has been filed in routine manner. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that if proceedings are allowed to continue, that would amount to an abuse of process of court.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing.

¶10

F.I.R. reveals that the accused is stated to have caused injuries by lathi-danda and fists to the complainant side along with six named co-accused and four to five other unknown persons and after investigation, the police has submitted charge-sheet. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to make any evaluation of the evidence gathered by the I.O. in proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

The arguments which are made by the learned counsel for the applicant are related to factual aspect which cannot be seen at this stage in the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶12

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

¶13

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 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, 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.

¶14

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

¶15

However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement 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.

¶16

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 13.6.2019 A. Mandhani

Ashraf @ Buddhu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf @ Buddhu 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

Aadil Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sher Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Golu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Guruma @ Poonam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Lilawati Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another