The Criminal Appeal seeking quashing of charges under IPC and SC/ST Act was dismissed. The court refused to quash proceedings as a prima facie offence was made out. Bail applications are permitted if surrendered.
Prayer to quash charge-sheet, cognizance order, and proceedings refused. Bail to be considered on surrender.
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. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6653 of 2019
Appellant :- Afzal And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Bhushan Mishra,Prem Shanker Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet no.101 of 2019 dated 14.05.2019 and cognizance order dated 15.10.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.483 of 2019 (State Vs. Afzal and another), arising out of Case Crime No.337 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Tharwai, District Prayagraj (Allahabad).
As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that on 20.10.2018 at about 6:00 PM, the appellants abused the victims with the name of their caste with an intention to humiliate and intimidate them in public view and also assaulted them, due to which, Kalpana and Nandini suffered injuries and have been medically examined.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the appellants and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the appellants and as such, impugned cognizance order cannot be quashed.
Moreover, at this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed
defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. The prayer for quashing the charge-sheet and entire criminal proceedings is therefore refused.
However, it is directed that if the appellants appear/surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. With the aforesaid observations, this criminal appeal is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.10.2019 Nadim
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prayer to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance order, and entire proceedings in a case alleging caste-based conspiracy and assault should be allowed at this stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶10
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶10
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶10
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶10
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Afzal and another
State of U.P. and another
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
