Dismissed

Chandra Bhawan v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2020A482/3845/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a non-bailable warrant. The court held the application lacked merit as it involved disputed facts requiring adjudication by the trial court, failing to establish abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Chandra Bhawan Vs State of Up and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3845 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Chandra Bhawan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ajay Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the nonbailable warrant dated 24.6.2019 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Kaushambi in S.T. No.63 of 2018 (State Vs. Chandra Bhawan and others) arising out of Case Crime No.699 of 2010, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Kokhraj, District Kaushambi pending in the court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Kaushambi.

¶7

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 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 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.

¶9

In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that learned counsel for the applicant has 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 dismissed accordingly.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 13.2.2020 Kpy

Chandra Bhawan v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Bhawan 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

Ramesh Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Neeraj and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Chhotak @ Susheel @ Sunil Vs State of Up and Another

Ratnesh @ Ratansen Chaudhary Vs State of Up and Another

Ram Lakhan Vs State of Up and Another

Satpal and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another