The High Court refused to quash a charge-sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C., finding that prima facie offence was made out. The court directed the applicants to surrender and apply for bail within 30 days to avoid coercive action.
Application to quash rejected; 30-day direction to surrender and apply for bail to avoid coercive action.
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. - 41
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40261 of 2019
Applicant :- Ram Gahan Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Shankar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Sri Yatindra Kumar Dubey, learned counsel filed Vakalatnama on behalf of O.P. No. 2, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 29.7.2019 in Case Crime No. 0144 of 2019, under section 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 354-B IPC, P.S. Chakiya, District Chandauli as well as further proceeding in pursuance of the impugned order dated 17.8.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Chakiya, Chandauli registering the case in Criminal Case No. 1321 of 2019.
The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the charge-sheet dated 29.7.2019 as well as further proceeding of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.11.2019 Masarrat
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge-sheet and subsequent case proceedings should be quashed under section 482 Cr.P.C. as no offence is disclosed.
Whether the malafide intention of the prosecution warrants quashing of the criminal proceedings at this stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶9
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶9
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶9
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶11
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶11
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Gahan Yadav And 3 Others
State of U.P.
Bachchoo Lal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
