Dismissed

Vimal Singh @ Rathour @ Chandra Bhusan Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2020A482/1363/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet and cognizance order, the High Court held that disputed factual defences cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Finding a prima facie case, the Court refused quashing but granted 30 days to voluntarily surrender for bail consideration.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet and cognizance order refused; applicant granted 30 days to surrender for bail.

Vimal Singh @ Rathour @ Chandra Bhusan Singh Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1363 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vimal Singh @ Rathour @ Chandra Bhusan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pooja Chaudhary,Sharda Prasad Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 17.7.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 17.10.2019 submitted by the investigating officer in case crime No. 035 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 352, 353, 379, 336, 504, 506 IPC, police station Kachawa, District Mirzapur, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur.

¶8

The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that from perusal of the FIR, the informant named to the accused persons without previously known by the first informant and further submitted that Investigating Officer has not considered the affidavit filed by alleged eye witness Sanjay. No offence against the applicant 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.

¶9

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 applicant. 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.

¶10

Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge according to the provisions prescribed in Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. In the light of Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7513 of 2014) SAU. KAMAL SHIVAJI POKARNEKAR vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court , A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.

¶11

The prayer for quashing the charge sheet as well as congnizance order are refused .

¶12

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected .

¶13

However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the settled law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.1.2020

¶15

Ankita

Vimal Singh @ Rathour @ Chandra Bhusan Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal Singh @ Rathour @ Chandra Bhusan Singh 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

Rinku and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Banti Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dwarika Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakeel and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sapna Vs State of U.P. and Another

Boby and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another