Dismissed

Bade Lal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2021A482/7411/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that prima facie cognizable case is made out. Dismissed the application for quashing the charge-sheet and cognizance order as it relates to disputed questions of fact not triable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Ordered expeditious disposal of any bail application.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing charge-sheet and cognizance order and prayer to stay proceedings dismissed.

Bade Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7411 of 2021 Applicant :- Bade Lal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶3

I have heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA and have gone through the material available on record carefully.

¶4

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 13.3.2020 as well as cognizance order dated 5.1.2021 in Case No. 4 of 2021 (State Vs. Bade Lal) arising out of Case Crime No. 318 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 354Kha, 325 I.P.C., P.SMaharajganj, District-Jaunpur, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Court No. 15, Jaunpur. Further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case has also been made.

¶5

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that prima facie cognizable case is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the Bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CR.P.C. I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶6

The impugned order reflects application of judicial mind. No interference is required by this Court.

¶7

Needless to state that in the eventuality of filing any bail application by the applicants before the trial Court, it is expected from the trial Court to decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law after considering entire aspect of the matter.

¶8

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the competent Court is to act in accordance with law.

¶9

With the above observation, this application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶10

Order Date :- 20.9.2021/S.Verma

Bade Lal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bade Lal and 3 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayyub Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagram Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Bahadur Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit @ Sumit @ Bhola and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Balkrishna Mishra Vs State of Up and Another