Disposed

Dhanveer v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2021A482/16215/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash criminal proceedings arising from a charge sheet under Section 420 IPC, allowing the applicant to file a discharge application before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to file discharge application before trial court within one month, with directive to trial court to decide within two months.

Dhanveer Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16215 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Dhanveer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings in Case No. 8590 of 2019 (State Vs. Dhanveer) based on charge sheet dated 09.02.2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 1187 of 2018, under Section 420 IPC, Police Station- Civil Lines, DistrictMoradabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated by the police under the alleged sections. It is submitted that due to being unaware of any criminal case lodged against him the applicant did not give details of the same in the application form submitted by him for being selected in PAC on the post of Constable, therefore, the charge sheet submitted against him was submitted without deeper scrutiny and analysis of all the relevant and material facts facts as well as evidence collected by the police. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the criminal case, if any, was lodged behind his back and he was not aware of the same until the lodging of the First Information Report against the applicant by the opposite party No. 2. Therefore, no charge against the applicant is made out under Section 420 IPC and the cognizance order dated 19.09.2019 is liable to be set aside as it has been passed on a charge sheet which itself is not based on true and cogent evidence.

¶8

In that view of the matter, applicant is permitted to move discharge application through counsel before the trial court within one month from today raising all the points which have been raised in this application and any other point that might be raised, be raised by the applicant in the discharge application and the trial court shall decide the same within a period of the next two months from the date of filing of application alongwith self attested copy of this order.

¶9

Applicant shall furnish personal bond as per Section 88 Cr.P.C before the Court below ensuring his presence before the Court for the purpose of consideration of discharge application. In case of failure to appear before the Court after execution of bond proceedings under Section 229-A I.P.C shall be initiated against him.

¶10

Till the discharge application is decided, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicant.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of finally.

¶12

Order Date :- 13.1.2021 LBY

Dhanveer v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanveer 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Murari @ Bhola Vs State of U.P.

Sripati Pandey and Others Vs State of U.P.

Raman Bhan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mangali Vs State of U.P.

Ramkewal Vs State of U.P.

Smt Dayawati Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another