Dismissed

Satish v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2019A482/37753/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of a charge-sheet alleging offences under Section 504 IPC and SC/ST Act. The Court held that the matter involves disputes of fact and no prima facie case was deemed made out. Bail was directed to be considered upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Refusal to quash charge-sheet; Direction to consider bail prayer upon applicant's surrender.

Satish Vs State of U.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37753 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Satish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manmohan Sachdeva,Ramanuj Tripathi 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 07.07.2016 and entire proceedings of Case No.9604 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Satish), arising out of Case Crime No.507 of 2016, under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(1) Da, Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station Banna Devi, District Aligarh.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that the applicant is a Priest in the Temple and on account of fact that the victim Smt. Indira Balmik belongs to Scheduled Caste, he did not permit her to enter in the Temple to offer prayer and used to abuse her and chased her away from the Temple.

¶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 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 charge-sheet 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, 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

¶11

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

Satish v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish 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

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

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

Ravindra Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another