Dismissed

Ashish Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2019A482/37726/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the application seeking quashing of charge-sheet, summoning orders, and trial proceedings. The court held that disputed facts and defence could not be adjudicated at this stage. The prayer for quashing was refused and the applicant was directed to approach the court below for bail upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of charge-sheet, summoning orders, and proceedings denied; bail application permissions given subject to appearance before trial court.

Ashish Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37726 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ashish Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the ChargeSheet dated 09.09.2014 and summoning orders dated 25.01.2017 and 20.08.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2017 (State Vs. Ashish Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 146 of 2014, under Sections 308, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Khanpur, District Ghazipur.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that on 25.05.2014, the applicant abused the victims with the name of their caste with an intention to humiliate and intimidate them and also assaulted them by lathi danda, due to which, three persons, namely, Manik Raj, Udai Bhan and Ravi have suffered injuries and have been medically examined.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant 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.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that the chargesheet has been submitted in the year 2014 and the delay in filing the present application has not been explained and 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 applicant and as such, impugned summoning orders cannot be quashed.

¶10

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,

¶11

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.

¶12

The prayer for quashing the charge-sheet and entire proceedings is therefore refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears/surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 19.10.2019 Nadim

Ashish Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Manohar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mohammad Ibram @ Imran Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sultan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravindra Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Vs State of U.P. and Another