Dismissed

Rampal and 5 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2019A482/9125/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings, the Single Bench observed that the Magistrate had sufficient grounds to summon the accused. The court found no offence was made out at this stage and refused to interfere, though it directed the trial court to consider bail lawfully.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for amendment allowed; prayer to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. refused.

Rampal and 5 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9125 of 2019 Applicant :- Rampal And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶4

Learned Counsel for applicants prays for and is allowed to amend the applicants father name in the memo of application as well as affidavit.

¶5

Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1467 of 2017, (Ram Niwas versus Rampal and others) pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, District Farrukhabad and summoning order dated 11.12.2017.

¶7

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.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer.

¶9

From the perusal of the material available on record and looking into the facts of the case, it appears that learned Magistrate, after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. find sufficient ground for proceeding and prima-facie case against accused-applicants, passed summoning order.

¶10

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.

¶11

I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and prayer is refused.

¶12

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.

¶13

In view thereof, application is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.3.2019 I.A.Siddiqui

Rampal and 5 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rampal and 5 Others v. State of Up 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaushal Yadav and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Malya Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Others

Jokhan Khan and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Shiv Chand Pathak Vs State of Up and Another

Sonu@Sunu Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Ramawati and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another