Dismissed

Nem Singh and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2021A482/2017/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Section 482 application seeking quashing of cognizance and revisional orders. The Court held that disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated at this stage and no prima facie case for interference was established.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed; bail application directed to be disposed expeditiously.

Nem Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2017 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Nem Singh And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed with the prayer to quash the revisional order dated 08.03.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Budaun in Criminal Revision No. 117 of 2018 as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 11.06.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Budaun in Case No. 4753 of 2015, under Sections 468, 420, 448, 454, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Islamnagar, District Budaun.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the first information report lodged by opposite party no. 2 against the applicants and others; the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet without proper investigation and the Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued process against the applicants and others. It is further submitted that the summoning order dated 11.06.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Budaun in Case No. 4753 of 2015 was challenged by the applicants and co-accused by Criminal Revision No. 117 of 2018, which has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 08.03.2019; that no offence is made out against the applicants. It is also submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is not owner of the house in question. It is urged that the Courts below did not consider the evidence on record correctly and the summoning order and revisional order are liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer and contended that upon investigation the charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicants and others, upon which the cognizance has rightly been taken by the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed the revision.

¶9

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the

¶10

facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed question of fact, which 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 the Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 ; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 ; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri) 192 ; and, lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10), 2005 SCC (Cri) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶11

In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. The application is accordingly dismissed.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 4.2.2021 SKT/-

Nem Singh and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nem Singh and 6 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

Ram Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpa Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Pal and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sushma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Tomar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another