Disposed

Devendra Dhama and another v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC26 Jun 2019A482/24020/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge considered a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash an FIR and NBW. The court held that factual disputes preclude quashing at this stage. However, applicants were directed to surrender within 45 days to have their bail prayer considered based on settled law.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; direction given that bail prayer be considered if applicants surrender within 45 days.

Devendra Dhama and another Vs State of U.P. and another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24020 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Devendra Dhama And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing the NBW dated 02.11.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 2435 of 2018 (Shrichand Vs. Devendra Dhama and others), under Sections- 406, 420 I.P.C., Police Station- Loni Border, District- Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants are disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involve factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶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 applicants at this stage. 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.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

¶9

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶10

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and

¶11

apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall 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.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 26.6.2019 Rohit

Devendra Dhama and another v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Dhama 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

Ajay Ram @ Ram Pandit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narayan Babu Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bechan Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Jain Vs State of Up

Afzal Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and another

Gopi Chandra Gola Vs State of U.P. and Another