Dismissed

Balswaroop Sahu v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2020A482/5393/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court dismissed a quashing application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held that disputed questions of fact regarding the allegations could not be adjudicated at this stage and the applicant failed to demonstrate abuse of process or likelihood of miscarriage of justice.

What did the court decide?

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. Bail application to be disposed expeditiously by the court below.

Balswaroop Sahu Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5393 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Balswaroop Sahu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohini Jaiswal,Azad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Mohini Jaiswal, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing Special Trial No.97 of 2017 (State vs. Balswaroop Sahu and others) pursuant to charge sheet dated 23.12.2016 as well as bailable warrant of dated 4.11.2019 in Case Crime No.672 of 2016 u/s 147, 352, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (1)da, dha and 3(2) 5ka SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Jhansi pending before Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant has been registered as Contractor and has been falsely implicated by opposite party no.2 being Mayor, Jhansi; that contents of F.I.R. lodged by opposite party no.2 are absolutely false and incorrect; that since opposite party no.2 was Mayor of Jhansi, the Investigating Officer without proper and fair investigation has submitted charge sheet; that it is wrong to say that on 15.12.2016 at 12.00 in Noon opposite party no.2 was inspecting construction work of road during which applicant and his associates assaulted her and abused her with caste name; that applicant did not commit any offence and no offence is made out against him; that the real fact is that on 15.12.2016 at 12.00 in noon when applicant was talking with Jaipal Singh, husband of opposite party no.2 Raju Book Seller along with PRO and shadow of opposite party no.2 came at the residence of applicant and demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- on the pretext of passing of road in testing, and when applicant refused to fulfill the demand of illegal gratification, husband of opposite party no.2 slapped and threatened applicant of life regarding which F.I.R. was lodged by applicant at Case Crime No.673 of 2016, in which due to influence of opposite party no.2 Investigating Officer submitted final report and applicant has filed protest petition against the final report on 4.1.2019 which is pending for disposal; that in the circumstances the prosecution of applicant on the charge sheet filed against him in Case Crime No.672 of 2016 is abuse of process of Court and is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that opposite party no.2 had no reason to lodge a false complaint against applicant; that following complaints from general public, regarding substandard quality of road constructed by applicant, opposite party no.2 had visited the spot for checking quality of road during which incident in question was committed by applicant and his associates; that the applicant as a matter of counter blast lodged a false F.I.R. against husband of opposite party no.2 at Case Crime no.673 of 2016 in which upon proper investigation final report has been submitted; that it is wrong to say that the charge sheet in this case has been submitted without proper investigation or due to influence of opposite party no.2.

¶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 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.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.2.2020

¶14

Balswaroop Sahu v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balswaroop Sahu 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

Suryabhan and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Vinod Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Dharmendra Singh and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Arun Kumar Chaurasia and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Usha Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Anoop Verma Vs State of Up and Another