Dismissed

Prashant Sirohi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2021A482/990/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge-sheet and cognizance order. The Court held that the allegations prima facie made out an offence and disputed facts could not be adjudicated at this stage, citing relevant precedents.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash the charge-sheet dated 12.09.2019 and cognizance order dated 04.01.2020 was dismissed.

Prashant Sirohi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 990 of 2021 Applicant :- Prashant Sirohi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant 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 dated 12.09.2019 and the cognizance order dated 04.01.2020 passed in Case No. 813 of 2020 (State v. Prashant Sirohi), arising out of Case Crime No. 509 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Indira Puram, District Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

¶5

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and no offence against the applicant is disclosed and 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 applicant.

¶6

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the first information report and the statement of witnesses, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant. He further submitted that role of firing has been assigned to the applicant and he was arrested from the spot and as such, cognizance order dated 04.01.2020 as well as the entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶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 applicant. 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 :- 22.2.2021 SKT/-

Prashant Sirohi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Sirohi 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

Ram Bharat Upadhyay Vs State of U.P.

Rahul and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Shahid and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Singhal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Bharose Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Singh Yadav @ Pintu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another