Dismissed

Ramnath Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2021A482/9567/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the application to quash the charge-sheet and cognizance order. It held that serious disputes of fact existed, no abuse of process was shown, and the applicant had a right to file for discharge before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of; the applicant directed to file a discharge application before the trial court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9567 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ramnath Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Babita Upadhyay, Sanjeev Kumar Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 24.12.2019, bearing Charge Sheet No.485 of 2019, as well as cognizance order dated 28.01.2020 in Case No.25792019, in Case Crime No.222/2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Munda Pandey, district Mordaabad, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Moradabad.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He submitted that the applicant is the agent of the company and the money was deposited with the company. He further submitted that neither the applicant has taken any money nor he has duped anyone and the applicant has nothing to do with the commission of crime. The present applicant was not the beneficiary in any way. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. has submitted that the impugned order is totally perfect and valid and there is no illegality in the impugned order. He submitted that the applicant was instrumental in depositing the money from the various persons and he has falsely misrepresented. He further submitted that charge sheet discloses the cognizable offence against the applicant.

¶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. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got right of discharge under Sections 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶10

The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39] has held that when charge sheet has been submitted and it has been challenged by way of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the

¶11

High Court, the High Court is not in a position to weight probabilities and re-appreciating the material, if High Court does it, it may be time consuming exercise and the legislative policy of expeditious disposal will hamper. At this stage, this Court is not in a position to weight the factual matrix of the case properly. After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material brought on record, the application does not show any abuse of process, which could be remedied by this Court. I find that there is no justification for quashing the impugned order as well as charge-sheet of the aforementioned case.

¶12

The accused has a right against charge sheet to file a discharge application before the trial court, the accused will file a discharge application before the trial court within a period of three weeks from today and the trial court shall decide the discharge application within a period of two months thereafter.

¶13

With the aforesaid direction, the application stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 5.7.2021

¶15

R./

¶16

Digitally signed by Justice Ajit Singh Date: 2021.07.13 17:55:39 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramnath Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramnath Sharma 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

Shobi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Rai Vs State of U.P.

Lalit Narayan Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaipal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.