Dismissed

Arjun and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2020A482/6035/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 CrPC application to quash a cognizance order and proceedings involving Section 354-A IPC and POCSO charges, the High Court held that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated at this stage as the prima facie case appears made out. The prayer to quash is refused, but the court directed surrender within 30 days for bail consideration and stayed coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash cognizance order and proceedings dismissed; plaintiffs directed to surrender within 30 days for bail consideration; no coercive action for 30 days.

Arjun and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6035 of 2020 Applicant :- Arjun And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey,Om Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶4

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the cognizance order dated 31.10.2019 as well as the entire proceedings in S.S.T. No. 463 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 252 of 2019, under Sections 354-A IPC, 7/8 POCSO Act and 67-A I.T. Act, Police Station Tarya Sujan, District Kushi Nagar, pending before the Special Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Kushinagr and further to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid special session trial.

¶5

It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicants that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicants have not committed any offence. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the applicants. Essential ingredients to constitute offence are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Learned counsel for the applicants pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶6

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer.

¶7

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

¶8

As is evident, 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 a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the 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 . From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicants are not made out. Hence, prayer made in the application is refused.

¶9

In the last, learned counsel has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of bail application of the applicants be given.

¶10

Hence, it is observed that in case applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶11

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants to surrender before the court concerned.

¶12

With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 11.2.2020/safi

Arjun and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun and 2 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Hukum @ Hukumi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yashpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Balveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish @ Rinku Vs State of Up and Anr.

Tribhuwan Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjun Singh @ Fantu Vs State of U.P. and Another