Dismissed

Vinod Sharma and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2020A482/5144/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking to quash a charge sheet. The court held that disputed questions of fact requiring trial evidence could not be adjudicated at this stage and no prima facie case for abuse of process was established.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Bail application to be disposed expeditiously.

Vinod Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of Up and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5144 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Sharma And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the Charge Sheet No.68 of 2019 dated 10.04.2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC and 3 (1)(r), 3 (1) (s) of SC/ST Act submitted by the police Station Achhalda, District Auraiya in Case Crime No 0066 of 2019, under Section 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC and 3(1)(r), 3 (1) (s) of SC/St Act and Stay the further proceeding of the Spl, S.T. No. 82 of 2019, " State Versus Vinod Sharma and others" 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC and 3(1) (r), 3 (1) (s) of SC/St Act, Police Station Achhalda, District Auraiya pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/St Act, Auraiya.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contends that applicants have been falsely implicated in this case; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect; that the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet without proper investigation of the case; that no offence is made out against the applicants and prosecution of the applicants is abuse of the process of the Court and the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. supported the charge sheet and contended that in the incident in question, fracture multiple injuries have been caused to three persons with fracture of bone; that the application is abuse of process of the Court.

¶9

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 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

¶10

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 applicant has failed to prove any prima facie case.

¶11

In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that learned counsel for the applicants 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.

¶12

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

¶13

However, if the applicants appear before the court below and move application for bail, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.2.2020 T.S.

Vinod Sharma and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Sharma 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

Rajpal and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Satyam Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Pintoo @ Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Suryabhan and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Dharmendra Singh and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Ajij Ahmad Vs State of Up and Another