Dismissed

Ram Lakhan v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2020A482/3846/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash summons and criminal proceedings, the High Court held that the arguments raised pertained to disputed questions of fact and did not disclose an abuse of process or likelihood of miscarriage of justice. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Bail applications pending before the court below are to be disposed of expeditiously.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3846 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Lakhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh,Vipin Vinod Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh, 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 summoning order dated 19.2.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, District Allahabad as well as entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.64 of 2019 (State Vs. Ram Lakhan), arising out of Case Crime No.599 of 2018, under Sections 342, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)v S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Soraon, District Allahabad pending in the court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, District Allahabad.

¶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

Ram Lakhan v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Lakhan 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

Chandra Bhawan Vs State of Up and Another

Satpal and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another