Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashal of criminal proceedings was dismissed because the applicant did not contest the legal bar against interfering with disputed facts and submitted to the lower court's jurisdiction to seek bail instead.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3403 of 2021 Applicant :- Shravan Yadav @ Sameer Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudarshan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA-I for the State-Opposite Party.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2678 of 2020 (State vs. Ankit Kumar and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.364 of 2020, under section 147, 323, 354 (A), 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (Da), 3(2) (Va), 3(1) (Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Mughalsarai, District Chandauli pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli.
Counsel for the applicant has sought to challenge the proceedings by referring to the factual aspects of the matter and the defence, which is sought to be set up on behalf of the applicant.
Learned AGA-I submits that the aforesaid contention would relate the disputed questions of fact and appreciation of evidence, which would be beyond the scope and purview of the jurisdiction to be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to dispute the aforesaid legal position and does not wish to press the relief, as prayed for, in the application. He states that the applicant would submit to the jurisdiction of the court below and apply for bail.
In view of the aforestated facts, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Nitendra
( Dr. Y.K.Srivastava,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings where the applicant failed to contest the legal limitation on quashing and subm
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shravan Yadav @ Sameer Yadav
State of U.P.
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
