Dismissed

Jaynendra Varshney and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2020A482/3536/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the application to quash the charge sheet and stay proceedings in a criminal case involving Sections 420, 511 IPC and the Specified Bank Notes Act. The court held that disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the charge sheet and stay proceedings refused; trial directed to be expedited.

Jaynendra Varshney and Another Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3536 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Jaynendra Varshney And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Ranjan Nigam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the charge sheet as well as proceedings of criminal case no. 3988/9 of 2019 (State Vs. Rajesh and others) arising out of crime no. 372 of 2019, under Sections 420, 511 IPC and Section 5/7 of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, district Muzaffar Nagar pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicants had 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 the contention.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer.

¶9

From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view of the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicants are not made out. 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 the Hon'ble 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. Applicants have obtained bail. The prayer made in the application is refused.However, trial court is directed to expedite the trial fixing short dates.

¶10

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 17.2.2020

¶11

Sachdeva

Jaynendra Varshney and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaynendra Varshney and Another v. State of Up 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

Sarvesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Amlendu Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of Up and Another

Ramsaran Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopal Das Gupta Alias Gopal Das Vs State of U.P.