Dismissed

Vinod Patel and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2021A482/3754/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge-sheet, holding that disputed facts and defense allegations could not be adjudicated at this stage as a prima facie offence was disclosed.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of charge-sheet and stay of proceedings was dismissed.

Vinod Patel and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3754 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Patel And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shree Prakash Upadhyay 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 charge-sheet dated 10.10.2019 arising out of case crime no. 223 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 308 IPC, Police Station Aurai, District Bhadohi and cognizance/bailable warrant dated 21.12.2019 and further prayer to stay the proceedings of case no. 3402 of 2019 (State Vs. Harishankar @ Muchchhad and others) pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from a perusal of the allegations made in the first information report, no offence is made out against the applicants. He further submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in this case.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that in the alleged incident injuries have been sustained by the real brother of the opposite party no.2. The injury report of Surya Prakash Patel is annexed as Annexure No. 2, establishes that prima facie offence is disclosed against the applicants.

¶9

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 applicant. 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 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶10

The application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶11

Order Date :- 10.2.2021 AK Pandey

Vinod Patel and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Patel and 2 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

Sandesh Khard @ Sandesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhan Ullah and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Life Long Net Mart, Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Neha Jain Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

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