Partly allowed

Pinki Malhotra and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2019A482/24011/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the spontaneous application seeking quashing of the charge sheet and proceedings for fact-disputes. It directed the applicants to surrender within 30 days for bail consideration and permitted no coercive action during that period.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing refused; bail to be considered upon surrender within 30 days; no coercive action pending.

Pinki Malhotra and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24011 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Pinki Malhotra And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Dhar Sahai,Ashish Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge sheet dated 6.1.2019 as well as the cognizance order dated 29.1.2019 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 212 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 390 of 2018, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 356, 354 Kha IPC, P.S. Afzalgarh, District Bijnor, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that due to earlier F.I.R. filed by the accused-applicant no. 1 against the son of opposite party no. 2, which is crime no. 378 of 2018 under Section 452, 506 and 354 Kha IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, and by way of retaliation this false case has been slapped against the accused-applicants. No such incident has taken place. Charge sheet has been submitted in routine manner without there being evidence on record to that efect. He further submits that if the proceedings are allowed to continue that would amount to abuse of process of law.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing.

¶9

Perused the F.I.R.

¶10

As per F.I.R. the accused-applicant no. 1 is stated to have torn the clothes of the informant and other co-accused had also participated in beating the opposite party no. 2. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and therefore the statements which has been recorded by the Investigating Officer cannot be scrutinized in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C..

¶11

The arguments made by the learned counsel for the applicant relates to the factual aspect of the matter, which cannot be seen at this stage in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C., as the same would require trial.

¶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 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, 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.

¶13

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

¶14

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 2.7.2019 A.P. Pandey

Pinki Malhotra and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pinki Malhotra and 2 Ors. 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

Akash Kumar Vs State of Up and Another

Bashir Vs State of Up and Another

Zafroon and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tipu Sultan Vs State of Up and Another

Sheetal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Arun Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of Up and Another