Dismissed

Ajab Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2021A482/4690/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge-sheet and cognizance order. The Court held that a prima facie offence was disclosed, disputed facts could not be adjudicated at this stage, and thus no case for interference was made out.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of charge-sheet and cognizance order is dismissed.

Ajab Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4690 of 2021 Applicant :- Ajab Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajai Kumar,Bhaskar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A

¶2

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent and perused the record.

¶4

The present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet No. 142 of 2020 dated 18.03.2020 as well as cognizance order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur in Case No. 2665 of 2020 (State v. Ajab Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 41 of 2020, under Section 147, 353, 332, 186, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, Police Station Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur, pending in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar, district Shahjahanpur.

¶5

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and no offence is made out against them. It is further submitted that the present prosecution has been initiated with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment and the learned Magistrate has failed to take into consideration the factual and legal aspect of the matter while summoning the applicants.

¶6

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that in the said incident a police constable has been injured. The injury report is annexed as annexure-4 to the affidavit. He further submits that prima facie offence is disclosed against the applicants.

¶7

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 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.

¶8

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

¶9

Order Date :- 16.3.2021 SKT/-

Ajab Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajab Singh and 4 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

Smt. Anarkali Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Avanish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Satendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ghanshyam Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Karan Singh @ Karuwa Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Sahu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another