Court refused quashing of charge sheet and cognizance order in Section 482 application, holding disputed facts should be tried. Granted 30-day stay on coercive action if applicants surrender and apply for bail.
Prayer for quashing refused; 30-day stay on coercive action granted if applicants surrender and apply for bail.
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. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1373 of 2020
Applicant :- Shakeel And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Vashistha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 29.6.2019 including the cognizance order dated 15.7.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj, arising out of case crime No. 1156 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354 (Kha) IPC, police station Kasganj, district Kasganj, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj.
The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that a counterblast FIR was lodged on 29.12.2018 by the opposite party No. 2 against the applicants after three days of the incident which was occurred on 26.12.2018 and there is no explanation of delay in lodging the said FIR. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer without appreciating the true facts of the case, wrongly submitted the charge sheet against the applicants. It is also submitted that no offence against the 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.
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 applicants. 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. Moreover, the applicants have 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.
The prayer for quashing the charge sheet as well as cognizance order, are refused .
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .
Order Date :- 17.1.2020
Ankita
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an offence is disclosed by the facts presented in the charge sheet to justify quashing via Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shakeel And 2 Others
State of U.P.
Suresh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
