Dismissed

Kumarlal and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2022A482/14390/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings for theft and death threats, the court held that disputed questions of fact precluded quashing at this stage and directed the applicants to seek discharge in the trial court instead.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash charge-sheet, summons order entirely proceedings refused; application disposed with direction to file discharge petition in trial court.

Kumarlal and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14390 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kumarlal And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet no. 56 of 2020, dated 05.03.2020 and cognizance/ summoning order dated 03.10.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 8044 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Kumarlal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 421 of 2019, under Section 379 I.P.C., Police Station Jasrana, District Firozabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IInd, Shikohabad, Firozabad.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that on 07.11.2019 at about 2:00 AM in the night, the applicants were stealing the paddy from the field of opposite party no.2 and on being asked not to forcibly take away the paddy, the applicants extended death threats to him.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicants and present case has been instituted against the applicants with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment, as such, entire proceedings be quashed.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants, as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶10

From 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 applicants. 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.

¶11

At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the

¶12

light of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the 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, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶13

Moreover, the applicants had already been directed to be released on bail and they have got right of discharge under Sections 239, 245 or 227 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶14

At this stage, this Court is not in a position to weigh the factual matrix of the case properly and accused has a right to file a discharge application before the trial court and the trial court may decide their discharge application, if there is no evidence against them.

¶15

The prayer for quashing the charge sheet, cognizance/ summoning order and entire proceedings is therefore refused.

¶16

However, it is directed that in case, the applicants file an application for discharge before the court below, the same be considered and decided in accordance with law after hearing the public prosecutor.

¶17

With the aforesaid directions, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed off.

¶18

Order Date :- 14.12.2022 Nadim

¶19

Digitally signed by NADIM ALAM Date: 2022.12.15 10:00:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kumarlal and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumarlal and 6 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

Bhupendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Waseem Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Anchal Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt Pragya Rai Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Yogesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shree Ram Mohan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another