Dismissed

Harish Chandra and 14 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2019A482/9130/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash summons issued in a criminal prosecution. The court held that disputed factual issues could not be adjudicated at this stage and no clear case was made out for quashing proceedings where a prima facie case existed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings and summoning order was refused.

Harish Chandra and 14 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9130 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Harish Chandra And 14 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Behari Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Lal Behari Yadav, learned Counsel for applicants.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the summoning order dated 21.2.2019 of Complaint Case No. 3059 of 2015 (Pushpa Devi Vs. Harish Chandra and others), under Sections 147, 352, 434, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Mohammadabad, District Mau, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau.

¶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 primafacie 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

¶11

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 (para10) 2005 S.C.C. (Cr.) 283.

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

In view thereof, application is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 11.3.2019 Manoj

Harish Chandra and 14 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Chandra and 14 Others 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

Radha and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Siraju and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Devendra Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Haimi Vs State of U.P.

Bua Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ravinder Singh Chauhan Vs State of Up and Another