Dismissed

Ravindra Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2019A482/37782/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 CrPC application, the applicant sought to quash the summoning order and criminal proceedings alleging casting abuse and assault. The Court held that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 CrPC and refused the prayer for quashing. The applicant was directed to seek bail separately upon appearing in the lower court.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to quash the summoning order and entire proceedings is refused and the application is disposed of.

Ravindra Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37782 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ravindra Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Kushwaha 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 impugned summoning order dated 23.03.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Special Case No.30 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Ravindra Pal), arising out of Case Crime No.212 of 2018, under Sections 323, 420, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(i) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sikheda, District Muzaffarnagar.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that the victim is a Mason and had carried out some construction work, for which, wages were due upon the applicant and on 21.06.2018 at about 10:00 AM, the victim asked the applicant to pay the wages, then he started abusing the victim with the name of his caste with an intention to humiliate and intimidate him and also assaulted him by kicks and fists and threatened him of life.

¶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 summoning order 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 summoning order 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

Ravindra Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Pal 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.

Satish Vs State of U.P. and Another