This single-judge criminal court rejected a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking to quash a charge sheet. It held that disputed facts and defence are not for consideration at the quashing stage and quashment was refused.
Refusal to quash the charge sheet dated 19.08.2021 along with cognizance order dated 25.2.2022.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14433 of 2022
Applicant :- Sahab Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avadh Raj Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 19.08.2021 along with cognizance order dated 25.2.2022 including further proceeding of case no. 386 of 2022 State Vs.. Kalpna Devi and others) arising out of case crime No. 465 of 2019, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 419 IPC P.S. Gandhi Park, District Aligarh pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/FTC Aligarh.
The contention of the 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 purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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, 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. Moreover, the applicant has got right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer as sought by the applicant is refused.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.8.2022
RPD
Digitally signed by RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI Date: 2022.08.12 08:40:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet disclosed an offence against the applicant requiring quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sahab Singh
State of U.P.
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
