Dismissed

Smt. Arti v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2020A482/7118/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the applicant's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a charge sheet. The court held that disputed questions of fact require evidence and could not be adjudicated at this stage. The applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case. Consequently, no abuse of process or miscarriage of justice was shown, and the application was dismissed. Bail may be moved late

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; applicant directed to approach court below for bail.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7118 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Arti Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Daya Ram Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vinay Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri D.R.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet no.54/2003 dated 01.07.2003 as well as criminal proceedings in Case No.4611 of 2019 (State vs. Sriram and others), arising out of Case Crime No.C-11 of 2003, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Nizamabad, District Azamgarh, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Azamgarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant has been falsely implicated for the offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C.; that as per averments made in F.I.R. no offence is made out against applicant and even if, any offence is found to have been made the submission of charge sheet is against the explanation of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., as all the offences are non-cognizable; that in the circumstances by quashing the impugned cognizable order the trial court is required to be directed to treat charge sheet as complaint; that similar order was passed by coordinate Bench of this Court on 22.01.2019 in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.2496 of 2019 (Kuldeep Sukla @ Rana and two others vs. State of U.P. and another), copy at Annexure-5.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. supporting the submission of charge sheet and cognizance order and submits that in F.I.R. there are clear averments of threat of life and offence is committed by applicant and co-accused is cognizable under Section 506(2) I.P.C.; that facts of case in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.2496 of 2019 (Kuldeep Sukla @ Rana and two others vs. State of U.P. and another) are different and the applicant may not take

¶9

any benefit under above order; that moreover order of coordinate Bench is not binding.

¶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 cognizable 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

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, 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. However, if the applicant appear before the court below and moves application for bail, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 3.3.2020 Md Faisal

Smt. Arti v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Arti 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

Nisar and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Alka Agarwal and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another

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