Disposed

Chandrakiran v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2022A482/11166/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a cognizance order and charge sheet. The court held that no offence was clearly made out but declined to quash the case at this stage as it was not fit to exercise inherent powers. The applicant was granted four months from no coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Refusal to quash cognizance order and charge sheet; direction that no coercive action be taken against applicant for four months.

Chandrakiran Vs State of U.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11166 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Chandrakiran Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash the cognizance order dated 30.05.2019 as well as charge sheet dated 06.03.2019 in Case No.1055 of 2019 (State Vs. Sarvesh and another), under Section 406, 506 IPC, arising out of Case Crime No.350 of 2018, Police StationBaniyather, District- Sambhal, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal at Chandausi.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case informant is police constable and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Matter relates with regard to money and notarized agreement to sell. The facts of this case are of civil nature and charge under Section 406 is not made out against the applicant. No offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment.

¶8

From the perusal of 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 under Section 406 IPC.

¶9

It is settled law that during the disposal of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court. At the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. It is not a fit case in which inherent power should be exercised in favour of the applicant. Question of facts shall be decided after hearing the evidence of both the parties. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary inherent power which should be exercised sparingly .

¶10

The prayer for quashing the cognizance order dated 30.05.2019/charge sheet in the aforesaid case is hereby refused.

¶11

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, if applicant moves an application for discharge through counsel within 30 days from the date of certified copy of this order, his application shall be considered and decided within three months in accordance with law by the court below. Till four months, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶12

With the aforesaid observation, the application is finally disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 25.7.2022 Priya

¶14

Digitally signed by PRIYA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.07.25 13:53:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandrakiran v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakiran 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Ayub Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Narendra Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramashish Rajbhar @ Ashish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajit Ram Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Yash Pal Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Ram Vishesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another