Disposed¶12

Satendra and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2020A482/997/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing of chargesheet refused; disputed questions of fact not adjudicable; prima facie case test; R.P. Kapur AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192; Zandu Pharmaceutical 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283; Case Crime No. 0415 of 2017 PS Shamli; Sections 147, 353, 332, 323, 504, 506, 341, 342 IPC; 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act; surrender and bail within thirty days; no coercive action for thirty days; Om Prakash-VII, J.; order dated 4.2.2020.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the chargesheet refused; applicants directed that if they surrender before the court below and apply for bail within thirty days, the bail application shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law, and no coercive action shall be taken against them for thirty days.

Satendra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the chargesheet in Case Crime No. 0415 of 2017 (Police Station Shamli, District Shamli) under Sections 147, 353, 332, 323, 504, 506, 341, 342 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC and further proceedings stayed. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

All the submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. cases.

¶8

Key takeaways

On a perusal of the material available on record, it cannot be said that the offences levelled against the applicants are not made out; accordingly, the prayer made in the application is refused.ratio¶8
In case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within thirty days, the bail application shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law.ratio¶10
For a period of thirty days from the date of the order, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under Section 482 CrPC by Satendra and 4 others seeking quashing of the chargesheet in Case Crime No. 0415 of 2017 under Sections 147, 353, 332, 323, 504, 506, 341, 342 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Shamli, District Shamli, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shamli. The court held that the submissions raised disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and that only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192) and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283). Finding that it could not be said the offences were not made out, the court refused the quashing prayer. On the applicants' request, it observed that if they surrendered and applied for bail within thirty days the application would be considered in view of the settled law, that no coercive action would be taken for thirty days, and that no further time would be allowed to surrender. Application disposed of.

¶1

Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 997 of 2020 Applicant :- Satendra And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Faiz Hasnain,Saba Khan 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 chargesheet in Case Crime No. 0415 of 2017, under Sections 147, 353, 332, 323, 504, 506, 341, 342 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Shamli, District Shamli pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shamli and further to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶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 :- 4.2.2020/safi

Satendra and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Rawat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamil Khan Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sumit Vs State of Up and Another

Shilesh @ Shailesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Fate Mohammad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Gupta and 10 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another