Partly allowed

Sonu @ Devkinandan Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 May 2022A482/10765/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of a charge sheet and summons, the Court held that disputed facts could not be adjudicated at this stage as a prima facie case was made out. The application was refused, but the applicant was directed to surrender and seek bail expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The quashing prayer refused; applicant directed to surrender within four weeks; bail application to be disposed of expeditiously.

Sonu @ Devkinandan Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10765 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu @ Devkinandan Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sheetal Prasad Chakravorty Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the charge sheet dated 28.11.2021 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 11.03.2022 in Case No.263 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.593 of 2021, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Rath, District Hamirpur.

¶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.

¶8

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, and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.

¶9

In view of the above, the relief as sought by the applicant in the instant application is refused.

¶10

However, considering the aforesaid alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned court below within four weeks from today and in case applies for bail, the bail application of the applicant shall be disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law and keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

¶11

and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

¶12

With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 12.5.2022 Meenu

¶14

Digitally signed by MEENU SINGH Date: 2022.05.13 17:47:35 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu @ Devkinandan Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu @ Devkinandan Vishwakarma 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

Ajay Kumar Yadav @ Guddo and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Satya Narayan and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Murali Dhar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rameshwar Dayal Vs State of U.P and Another

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