In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge-sheet and cognizance order alleging malafide prosecution, the Court held that disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated at this stage.
Prayer for quashing refused; direction to surrender and apply for bail within 30 days.
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. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43629 of 2019
Applicant :- Sunil Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 11.2.2019 along with cognizance order passed by A.C.J.M., Kaushambi as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 113 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime no. 224 of 2018, u/s 363 IPC, P.S. Mahewa Ghat, District Kaushambi.
The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant 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 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case and the chargesheet is refused.
After hearing learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. this application is finally disposed of with a direction that if the applicants appear and surrender before the Courts below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then their bail application shall be considered and decided by the court below expeditiously in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.12.2019 Dhirendra/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge-sheet in Case Crime no. 224 of 2018 under Section 363 IPC discloses an offence against the applicants.
Whether the prosecution was instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶8
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¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunil Kumar
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
