Dismissed

Arvind and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2019A482/32014/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court examined an application to quash criminal proceedings alleging assault. Finding that a prima facie offence was made out and disputed facts could not be adjudicated under Section 482 CrPC, the Court refused the prayer to quash. However, it directed that if the applicants surrendered and applied for bail within 45 days, their application would be considered, and no coercive action would be

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash of proceedings refused; direction to complete surrender and apply for bail within 45 days for potential bail consideration; no coercive action for this period.

Arvind and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32014 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Arvind And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sitaram Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sadhu Sharan

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the Charge-sheet dated 14.04.2016 and 21.03.2017, cognizance order dated 01.07.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2196 of 2018 (State Vs. Arvind) arising out of Case Crime No.437 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 504, 506, 380 I.P.C., P.S. Bardah, District Azamgarh, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Azamgarh.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that on 17.06.2015 at about 9:00 A.M., the applicants assaulted the first informant and his daughter-in-law Lalti Saroj. On account of the assault made by the applicants, victims Lalti Saroj and Shyama Saroj have suffered injuries on their persons and have been medically examined.

¶8

The contention of counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present application has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, charge-sheet, cognizance order as well as the entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶10

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. 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.

¶11

At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 , the prayer for quashing charge-sheet, cognizance order as well as the entire proceedings is refused.

¶12

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within forty five days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of 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 in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) .

¶13

For a period of forty five days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for 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 the aforesaid directions, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Zafar

Arvind and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind and 4 Others 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

Shakeel Ahmad Beg Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Pratima Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Daljeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Kishan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Mathur Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shrawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another