Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing summoning order in an offences under IPC cases. Single Judge held prima facie case exists and refused interference, leaving bail matters for Trial Court while citing relevant precedents.
Prayer for quashing of summoning order refused. Application disposed of.
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. - 23
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9041 of 2019
Applicant :- Kaushal Yadav And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Prajapati, learned Counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State-respondents.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 23.01.2019 passed in complaint case no.1697 of 2018, under Section 323, 427, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
The contention of the learned counsel for applicants is that no offence against 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 the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (para-10) 2005 S.C.C. (Cr.) 283.
I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and prayer is refused.
However, Trial Court is expected, while considering their bail, to bear in mind, established law by Hon'ble Apex Court and the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (7) ADJ 151.
In view thereof, application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.3.2019 I.A.Siddiqui
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as no offence is disclosed.
Whether the prima facie case is made out against the applicants based on the material on record.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur v. State of PunjabReferred¶8
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. P.P. SharmaReferred¶8
State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (para-10) 2005 S.C.C. (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Brahm Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶10
Brahm Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (7) ADJ 151
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kaushal Yadav And Anr
State Of U.P. And Another
Rajendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
