The High Court refused to quash the charge-sheet and cognizance order in a case involving caste-based abuse. It held that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated at this stage and directed expeditious bail consideration upon surrender.
Application for quashing was refused; applicant directed to apply for bail upon surrender.
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. - 38756 of 2019
Applicant :- Ballu @ Rajesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the Charge-Sheet No.01 of 2018 dated 16.02.2018 and cognizance order dated 15.03.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.339 of 2018 (State Vs. Ballu @ Rajesh), arising out of Case Crime No.03 of 2018, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station Mauranipur, District Jhansi.
As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that on 02.01.2018 at about 9:00 AM, the applicant abused the victims with the name of their caste with an intention to humiliate and intimidate them, due to which, they suffered injuries and has been medically examined.
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.
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 cognizance 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 charge-sheet and entire proceedings is therefore refused.
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.
With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.10.2019 Nadim
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge-sheet and cognizance order arising from an alleged caste-based abuse should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the disputed question of fact regarding the innocence of the applicant can be adjudicated by the High Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶10
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶10
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶10
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶10
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ballu @ Rajesh Kumar
State of U.P.
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
