Dismissed

Yugul Kishore Agrawal and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC28 Feb 2019A482/9849/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Court disposed of an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a charge sheet. The court held that the applicant's alibi plea and other disputed factual defenses cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The matter was referred for consideration before the trial court via a discharge application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of the charge sheet is refused; case reserved for trial.

Yugul Kishore Agrawal and Others Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9849 of 2002

¶3

Applicant :- Yugul Kishore Agrawal And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bishram Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,R.B. Sahai

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the material available on record.

¶6

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 28.01.2002 submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicants in pursuant to N.C.R. No. 173 of 2000, under Sections 352, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Padrauna, District Kushinagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant no. 1, Yugul Kishore Agarwal, has taken plea of alibi that on the date of incident, he was posted as a Bank Manager in the Punjab National Bank, Chhitauni, Kushinagar and distance between the place of incident and Kushinagar is about 56 kilometres. He further submitted that without prior permission, he cannot leave the station, therefore, his presence at the time of incident is not possible. This submission may be taken by the learned counsel for the applicants before the trial court on filing the discharge application on behalf of the applicants-accused.

¶8

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it appears prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. Charge sheet against the applicants has been submitted after proper appreciation of the documentary evidence.

¶9

All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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. However, the applicants have got a right of discharge according to the

¶10

provisions prescribed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶11

The prayer for quashing charge sheet, is refused.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 28.2.2019 Vibha Singh

Yugul Kishore Agrawal and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yugul Kishore Agrawal and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

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

Ram Saran and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Pradeep @ Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chatar Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Jitendra Babu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Keshore Kumar Lekhpal Vs State of U.P. and Others