Dismissed

Smt. Savita Devi and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2019A482/25042/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the charge sheet and criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that disputed facts and injury were established, and the case involved prima facie cognizable offences requiring judicial inquiry. A stay on coercive action was granted for 30 days conditional on surrender.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of charge sheet and proceedings dismissed. Stay on coercive action granted for 30 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail.

Smt. Savita Devi and 3 Others Vs State of Up and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25042 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Savita Devi And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri A.D. Misra, 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 impugned charge sheet dated 9.10.2018 as well as the entire Criminal Proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1143 of 2019 (State Vs. Savita Devi and others) pending in the Court of C.J.M. Kaushambi, submitted by the police of Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi, under Sections 452, 354-B, 323, 352, 504, 506 and 427 IPC, arising out of Case Crime No. 198 of 2018 as well as the order of cognizance dated 10.4.2019 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

Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The accusedapplicant no.1 has also moved a complaint againstopposite party no.2 and her other family members which has been registered as a complaint case and the statement of witnesses are still to be recorded. It is next contended that it is a no injury case. Hence, FIR needs to be quashed.

¶8

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

¶9

I have gone through the FIR and find that the accused applicants are stated to have molested the opposite party no.2 and she was beaten and abused by applicants. After investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted against applicants. The statement of witnesses recorded by the I.O. cannot be disbelieved 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 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 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

¶13

applicants would 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 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 :- 8.7.2019/Neeraj

Smt. Savita Devi and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savita Devi and 3 Others v. State of Up 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

Sharuf Khan Vs State of U.P.

Vimal Kumar Vs State of U.P.and Another

Jagdish and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Satendra Narayan Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mahfooz Alam Vs State of U.P. and another