Dismissed

Praveen Kumar and 4 Others v. State of Up and Anr.

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2019A482/38639/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court refused to quash criminal proceedings instituted against applicants under IPC and SC/ST Act alleging assault and caste humiliation. Held that disputed facts require trial; prima facie case exists. Applicants granted leave to apply for bail upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings refused. Direction to consider bail if applicants surrender.

Praveen Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Anr. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38639 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Praveen Kumar And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.90 of 2016 (Smt. Babli Vs. Praveen Kumar and others), under Sections 147, 323, 354-B, 384, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Gangoh, District Saharanpur, pending in the Court of learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.2/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Saharanpur.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint and statement of witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, it is alleged that on 23.10.2016 at about 8:30 AM, the applicants abused the victim with the name of her caste with an intention to humiliate and intimidate her and also assaulted her by kicks and fists and tried to outrage her modesty.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the victim has not suffered any injury.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, 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.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, impugned order cannot be quashed.

¶11

Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by

¶12

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.

¶13

The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of complaint case is therefore refused.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 24.10.2019 Zafar

Praveen Kumar and 4 Others v. State of Up and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar and 4 Others v. State of Up 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

Jograj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Yusuf @ Eesuf Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satpal Saini and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anuj @ Pataiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Dahin Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Anr.