Application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of charge-sheet and proceedings alleging caste-based abuse was dismissed as disputed facts precluded adjudication. Court directed bail consideration upon surrender.
Prayer for quashing refused; direction to consider bail application upon surrender with opportunity of hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32543 of 2019
Applicant :- Chanchal Kashyap And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Noor Muhammad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the State today in the Court, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 16.12.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Case Crime No.855 of 2018, under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) (R) (S) of SC/ST Act, Police Station North, District Firozabad, pending in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Firozabad.
As per the allegations made in the FIR and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 CrPC, it is alleged that on 24.08.2018 at about 8:30 PM, the applicants entered in the house of the victim and abused her with the name of her caste with an intention to humiliate and intimidate her and also tried to outrage her modesty.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicants and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
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, impugned order cannot be quashed.
Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, only prima
facie case is to be seen in the light 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the impugned order as well as entire proceedings is therefore refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.10.2019 Zafar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge-sheet and proceedings under Sections 504, 506 IPC and SC/ST Act should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether disputed questions of fact could be adjudicated upon by this Court at this stage under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶12
AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶12
1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶12
1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶12
2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Chanchal Kashyap and 2 Others
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
