Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC12 May 2022A482/10767/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a quashing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the court rejected the plea that the proceedings should be quashed due to alleged false implication. The court held that disputed facts and veracity of witnesses cannot be tested at this stage as a prima facie case for cognizable offence existed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the charge-sheet and proceedings refused; application dismissed.

Murali Dhar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10767 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Murali Dhar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suneel Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Naresh

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Suneel Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shiv Naresh, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings as well as charge-sheet dated 20.01.2022 and cognizance order dated 09.02.2022 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court NO.2, Bhadohi in S.T. No. 17 of 2022 (State vs. Murali Dhar and others) arisig out of Case Crime No. 385 of 2021, under sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC and section 3(1) (r and s) of Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Gopiganj, District Bhadohi and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.

¶7

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the accused-applicants have been falsely implicated by the opposite party no. 2 and no such occurrence has taken place. The present FIR has been lodged as a counter-blast to build up pressure upon the applicants to withdraw the case lodged against the sons of the opposite party no.2. If proceedings are allowed to continue that would amount to an abuse of process of court, therefore, charge-sheet needs to be quashed.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet. Learned counsel for the informant has further submitted that the informant has received injury and as per the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., an offence is clearly made out against the applicant and the court below has rightly taken cognizance and summoned the accused-applicants.

¶9

After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer after having recorded statements of witnesses.The veracity of the statement of the witnesses cannot be tested in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. From the evidence on record, it cannot be said that cognizable offence is not made out against the accused-applicants.

¶10

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 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 and 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 .

¶11

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused and the instant application is dismissed.

¶12

However, if the applicants file bail application, their bail application shall be decided by the trial court considering the law laid-down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Statendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal No. 5191 of 2021).

¶13

Order Date :- 12.5.2022 AU

¶14

Digitally signed by ADEEB UDDIN Date: 2022.05.13 16:36:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murali Dhar and 2 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

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

Sonu @ Devkinandan Vishwakarma 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