Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash charge sheet dismissed as factual disputes cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Applicant granted 45-day window to surrender without coercive measures; bail prayer to be considered thereafter per specified precedents.
No coercive measures for 45 days; applicant to surrender and seek bail within this period.
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. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2001 of 2020 Applicant :- Taju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashfaq Ahmed Ansari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet no.302A of 2018 dated 16.11.2018 as well as proceeding of Criminal Case No.3246 of 2018 (State Vs. Rizwan & others), arising out of Case Crime No.382 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 504, 506, 34, 326 I.P.C., Police Station Daurala, District Meerut.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant 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 applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
From a 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 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 .
The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, his 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.
For a period of 45 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .
Order Date :- 17.1.2020 Anand Sri./-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned charge sheet and proceedings disclose an offence against the applicant warranting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether coercive measures shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶7
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶7
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶7
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶7
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶9
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶9
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Taju
State of U.P.
Another
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
