The court rejected the application to quash the chargesheet and criminal proceedings, finding disputed facts unsuitable for Section 482 CrPC jurisdiction. It granted a 30-day window for bail consideration and stayed coercive actions.
Prayer to quash refused; 30 days for surrender and bail application allowed; coercive action stayed for 30 days.
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. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 226 of 2020 Applicant :- Ankush And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 16.02.2019 as well as the entire proceedings in Case No. 6939 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 351 of 2018, under Sections 498-A 323, 504 376 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Bahsooma, District Meerut pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicants that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicants have not committed any offence. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the applicants. Essential ingredients to constitute offence are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Learned counsel for the applicants pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.
As is evident, 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 a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the 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 . From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicants are not made out. Hence, prayer made in the application is refused.
In the last, learned counsel has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of bail application of the applicants be given.
Hence, it is observed that in case applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants to surrender before the court concerned.
With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 6.1.2020 Sanjeet
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the chargesheet dated 16.02.2019 and proceedings in Case No. 6939 of 2019 should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the applicants satisfy the criteria for expeditious disposal of their bail application.
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 (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ankush And 4 Others
Om Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
