Disposed

Ranjeet v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2022A482/10098/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order. The court held that disputed questions of fact cannot be examined at this stage, as only a prima facie case is required. The applicant was directed to approach the trial court for discharge if new legal grounds arise.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the charge sheet and cognizance order refused; applicant directed to move an application for discharge before the trial court.

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10098 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ranjeet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Swatantra Kumar Rai,Ram Pravesh Yadav

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet filed in Case Crime No. 409 of 2020, under Sections 323, 506, 188, 271 IPC and Section 3 of Pandemic Act, Section 51(b) of Disaster Management Act as well as its cognizance taken by the court pursuant to that charge sheet in Case No. 19462 of 2020 (State Vs. Ranjeet and Others).

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant placing contents of the affidavit of the deponent/applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity of Civil Suit bearing Civil Suit No. 92 of 2020 (Panchram and others Vs. Rudra Shankaer and others.), pending in the civil court, District Sant Kabir Nagar, wherein father of the applicant Parasnath and accused Akhilesh of the present case are coplaintiffs whereas father of the informant is one of the defendants.

¶9

Learned civil court has issued ex-parte injunction against the defendants vide order dated 10.2.2020 in that civil suit. In supplementary affidavit, copy of cognizance order of the lower court has been filed, whereby learned magistrate vide order dated 3.11.2020 has taken cognizance under section 323, 506, 271 IPC on the basis of charge sheet and directed the investigating officer to initiate fresh action so far as offence under Section 188 IPC, Section 3 of Pandemic Act and Section 51(b) of Disaster Management Act.

¶10

On the basis of material available on record, no offence is made out against the applicant and the implication of the applicant in the present case is due to enmity of civil dispute. The impugned charge sheet as well as proceedings pursuant to that charge sheet, are absolutely illegal and against the material available on record. There is no specific allegation against the applicant.

¶11

Allegations in F.I.R. are of general nature. The proceedings against the applicant is nothing but an abuse of process of court and malicious prosecution.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that cognizance has been taken by the court concerned on the basis of charge sheet filed in the case registered at police station concerned at the instance of informant and after collection of sufficient evidence, charge sheet has been submitted in the present case against the accused persons including the applicant. It is further argued that only due to the fact that civil suit is pending between the parties, it cannot be inferred that applicant is victim of malicious prosecution. There is no mention of injury of the witnesses in the present case, in the application.

¶13

All the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the grounds taken in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is found that the disputed questions of fact have been raised in the application at the stage of hearing of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., no mini trial can be held nor it is desirable at the stage of taking up cognizance by the magistrate. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9 .

¶14

The defense of the accused cannot be considered at the stage of hearing of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C, therefore, prayer for quashing the charge sheet and cognizance taken order is refused.

¶15

However, applicant is at liberty to move an application for discharge at the appropriate stage before the trial court wherein all the legal and factual pleas can be raised, which are available to the applicant and it is expected that court will decide the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶16

Order Date :- 14.9.2022 A.P. Pandey

¶17

Digitally signed by ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY Date: 2022.09.15 13:53:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ranjeet v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet 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

Yogesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neeraj Mavi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munna Yadav @ Krishna Murari Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sajida Parveen @ Soni Vs State of U.P.and Another

Jahendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others