Disposed¶12

Sanjeev @ Fauji and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2020A482/141/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing application disposed of; prayer to quash charge sheet dated 11.12.2015 and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10478 of 2016 (Case Crime No. 0481 of 2015, Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Gulaothi, District Bulandshahr) refused; disputes of fact not adjudicable under Section 482; prima facie test per R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma, Zandu Pharmaceutical; liberty to surrender within 45 days and seek bail per Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)); no coercive measures for 45 days.

What did the court decide?

Quashing refused; however, applicants permitted to appear and surrender within 45 days and apply for bail (bail to be considered per Amrawati and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh), with no coercive measures against them for 45 days. ¶12

Sanjeev @ Fauji and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 11th December, 2015 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10478 of 2016 (State Vs. Sanjeev @ Fauji & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0481 of 2015, ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶6

Court's answer

On a perusal of the material on record and the facts of the case, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants at this stage.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

All submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; at this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down in R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical.

¶8

Key takeaways

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 10478 of 2016 is refused.ratio¶9
In case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)).ratio¶10
For a period of 45 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 11th December, 2015 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10478 of 2016 (State Vs. Sanjeev @ Fauji & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0481 of 2015 under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Gulaothi, District-Bulandshahr, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr. Held: the applicants' submissions involved disputed questions of fact and appraisal of evidence, incapable of adjudication under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and on the material on record it could not be said that no offence was made out; following the prima facie test in 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 Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283), the prayer for quashing was refused. The applicants were directed to appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days and apply for bail, their bail prayer to be considered in view of Amrawati Vs. State of U.P. (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)); no coercive measure was to be taken against the applicants for 45 days. Application finally disposed of.

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 141 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjeev @ Fauji And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pushpendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Pushpendra Singh Lodhi and Santosh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 11th December, 2015 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10478 of 2016 (State Vs. Sanjeev @ Fauji & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0481 of 2015, under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Gulaothi, District-Bulandshahr pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶8

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 at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions 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 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 .

¶9

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶10

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶11

For a period of 45 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶12

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

¶13

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 7.1.2020 Sushil/-

Sanjeev @ Fauji and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev @ Fauji and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Ali and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manik Chandra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Nahar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another