Disposed

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

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2021A482/6009/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, the High Court held that disputed questions of fact precluded quashing. Disposing of the primary prayer, the Court directed the lower courts to decide the applicant's bail application within 30 days and granted protection from coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Directed courts below to decide bail application within 30 days; no coercive action against applicant pending bail decision.

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

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6009 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Brijbhan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Binod Kumar Vishwakarma,Reena Chatterji

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking quashing the entire proceedings in pursuance of Charge-sheet No.01 of 2020 arising out of Case No.302 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406 and 448 IPC, P.S. Khaga, District Fatehpur.

¶8

The contention of counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

¶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 questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

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 entire proceedings summoning order and charge sheet is refused.

¶11

After arguing the case for quite some time at length, learned counsel for the applicant himself has given up to address the Court on merits of the case and prayed, that the purpose of his clients would suffice, if a direction may be given to the courts below to decide his bail application within specific time frame.

¶12

However, it is directed, that in case applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of applicants expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶13

For a period of 30 days from today or till disposal of bail application whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant in the aforesaid case

¶14

With the above directions, present application is disposed off.

¶15

Order Date :- 9.8.2021 S. Singh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijbhan 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

Chandra Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rishipal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Singh @ Chetan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Vs State of U.P. and Another