Dismissed

Smt. Mahendri Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2020A482/7085/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge sheet. The court held that disputed questions of fact require evidence and cannot be adjudicated at this stage, as the applicant failed to prove any prima facie case or show abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. Bail hearing directed to be disposed expeditiously if applicants appear.

Smt. Mahendri Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7085 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Mahendri Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Ram (Rawat),Giri Ram Rawat,Indra Deo Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Giri Ram Rawat learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 25.2.2006 including entire criminal proceedings of Case No.6249 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No.88 of 2005 u/s 406 and 420 I.P.C. pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/S.D.V., Mathura relating to P.S. Nauh Jheel District Mathura.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant contends that the applicants were borrowers and have been falsely implicated and charge-sheeted; that prosecution of applicants is abuse of process of Court.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the liability of borrowers is coextensive and the borrowers are none other than the son of applicant no.1 and brother of applicant no.2.

¶10

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 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 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.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 4.3.2020

¶15

Smt. Mahendri Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mahendri Devi and Another 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

Jai Singh and 5 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Krishna Kumar Sharma Vs Aligarh Development Authority

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jafer Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Allu @ Sharafat Vs State of U.P.

Amiyak Kumar Das @ Amit Vs State of U.P.