Dismissed

Chandra Kiran Tyagi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2021A482/24552/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings filed against the applicant under Sections 323, 504 IPC and 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act, holding that prima facie an offence was made out and disputed facts cannot be considered under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing charge-sheet and proceedings rejected; applicant granted 45 days to surrender for bail consideration without coercive action.

Chandra Kiran Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24552 of 2011 Applicant :- Chandra Kiran Tyagi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶2

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Ms Seema Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.

¶4

The present 482, Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of criminal case no. 5390 of 2011 (case crime no. 208 of 2011) under Section 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(I) XI SC/ST Act, P.S. Razabpur District Jyotiba Phule Nagar pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar and also for quashing the charge sheet sheet dated 25.05.2011 filed in the aforesaid case.

¶5

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was the Station House Incharge of the concerned Police Station and as the opposite party no. 2 remained absent unauthorizedly and wanted to note his presence in the attendance register, which was objected to by the applicant, therefore, the present criminal prosecution has been initiated against the applicant by the opposite party no. 2, which is gross misuse of the process of the Court. It is further contended that the allegations made in the first information report and in the statement of witnesses, namely, S.I. R.K. Rawat, Ram Khilauna Sharma, Darshanveer Singh, Anil Kumar and Ashok Kumar, no offence is made out against the applicant, as such entire proceedings be quashed.

¶6

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, charge-sheet,

¶7

cognizance order and entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶8

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 applicants. 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.

¶9

At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab , AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal , 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma , 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another , (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, the prayer for quashing the charge-sheet and entire proceedings is refused.

¶10

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court .

¶11

For a period of 45 days from today or till the appearance of the applicant before the court concerned, whichever is earlier no coercive action shall be taken against him. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶12

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

¶13

It is made clear that no application seeking extension of time shall be entertained if this order is not complied within the aforesaid period.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.1.2021/Ashish/SS

Chandra Kiran Tyagi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Kiran Tyagi 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

Sher Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjun and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Ehtasham Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalita Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Dr Rakesh Mandhorya Vs State of U.P.

Raj Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another