Disposed

Babu Sahani and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2019A482/40612/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused the application to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order, holding that disputed facts and evidence appraisal are not admissible under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, the Court directed that no coercive measures be taken for 45 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail.

What did the court decide?

No coercive measure to be taken for 45 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail within that period.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40612 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Babu Sahani And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saroj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Saroj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sheetal Prasad Chakravorty, learned counsel for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 30.10.2016 as well as its cognizance order dated 28.09.2017 in Case No.2392 of 2017 (State Vs. Babu Sahani & another) arising out of Case Crime No.167 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 392, 354(B) I.P.C., Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi.

¶7

The contention of learned 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 purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶8

From a 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 at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions 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 .

¶9

The prayer for quashing the charge sheet as well as cognizance order is refused.

¶10

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and

¶11

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.

¶12

For a period of 45 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶13

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 19.11.2019 Anand Sri./-

Babu Sahani and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Sahani and Another 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

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sherbaaz Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aakim and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shyam Kumari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another