Partly allowed

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

Allahabad HC13 Jun 2019A482/22617/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of the charge-sheet and cognizance. The court refused the quashing prayer as disputed facts could not be adjudicated. However, it ordered that if the applicants surrender and apply for bail within 30 days, their bail and the non-taking of coercive action will be considered.

What did the court decide?

Refused quashing of charge-sheet. Directed that if applicants appear and surrender within 30 days and apply for bail, bail shall be considered and no coercive action shall be taken for that period.

Smt. Lilawati Devi and Another Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22617 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Lilawati Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shivam Yadav,Akhilesh Singh,Anil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri A.N. Mulla, 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 11.08.2018 as well as cognizance order dated 12.10.2018 in Case No. 5538 of 2018 (State Vs. Ganga Chaudhary & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 282 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 332, 333, 353, 336, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Farenda, District Maharajganj, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application and to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case 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 applicants that the accused-applicant have been falsely implicated by the opposite party no. 2 and no such occurrence has taken place. Hence the charge sheet needs to be quashed.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet.

¶9

Perusal of the FIR indicates that the opposite party no. 2 has been caused injuries by the accused-applicants as mentioned in the FIR along with some other unknown persons but only the name of present applicants had emerged. The evidence which has been gathered by the I.O. during investigation, cannot be scrutinized, at this stage in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

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 applicants. 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 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 applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid-down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and

¶13

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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶14

With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 13.6.2019 Neeraj

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lilawati Devi and Another 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

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