Dismissed

Neeraj and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2020A482/3785/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J. dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for Section 323 IPC and 3(1)(X) S.C./S.T. Act harassment. The court held that disputed facts require trial and no prima facie case was established to quash the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

Neeraj and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3785 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Neeraj And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Naveen Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings as well as summoning order dated 17.10.2019 in S.S.T. No.101 of 2019, (Pujari Vs. Neeraj and others), under Section 323 I.P.C. and3(1)(X) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad, pending in the court of Special Judge S.C./S.T Act, Farrukhabad.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants are disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He referred to certain evidence in support of his contention.

¶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. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which require evidence and 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, and the applicants have failed to prove any prima facie case.

¶9

In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that learned counsel for the applicants have failed to show that there is any abuse of process of court or likelihood of miscarriage of justice for prevention of which the exercise of inherent powers by this Court is required. The application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed .

¶11

However, if the applicants appear before the court below and moves application for bail, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶12

Order Date :- 10.2.2020 Md Faisal

Neeraj and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj and 3 Others 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

Bheem Singh Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Vs State of U.P.

Bhupendra Singh @ Bhupendra Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Chhotak @ Susheel @ Sunil Vs State of Up and Another

Rahul and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another