Dismissed

Tanpreet Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2021A482/4763/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 9.11.2021 dismissed the applicant's application seeking quashing of a chargesheet under Section 482 CrPC. The court held that the FIR and investigation material disclosed a prima facie offence, and disputed facts could not be adjudicated at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash chargesheet and proceedings refused; applicant directed to seek bail facility.

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

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4763 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Tanpreet Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhai Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghuvansh Misra

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed counter affidavit today in Court, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State/ opposite party no.1, Shri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 28.12.2019 and entire proceedings of Case No. 891 of 2020 (State Vs. Tanpreet Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 700 of 2019, under Sections 420, 408 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur, pending in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Rampur.

¶8

As per the allegations made in the FIR and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, it is alleged that the applicant Tanpreet Singh was employed as Dresser in K.D. Dalmiya Eye Hospital, Rampur and in respect of misappropriation of funds, a FIR was lodged against him and a detailed enquiry has been conducted by Additional Chief Medical Officer, Rampur and in the said enquiry, applicant was found guilty of having misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,53,800/-.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicant and the present criminal case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention, as such, entire proceedings be quashed.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the

¶11

material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, charge-sheet and entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶12

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. Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶13

The prayer for quashing the charge-sheet and entire proceedings is therefore refused.

¶14

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears/ surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, his prayer for bail be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.

¶16

Connected Application U/s 482 No. 5267 of 2021 (Khushboo Gulati Vs. State of U.P. and another) be detached from this application and list separately in due course.

¶17

Order Date :- 9.11.2021 Nadim

Tanpreet Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanpreet Singh 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

Abhishek Rastogi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amardeep Singh Nagpal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Raja and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Digvijay @ Toni Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashutosh Vs State of U.P. and another

Digvijay @ Toni Vs State of U.P. and Another