The court dismissed the Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of proceedings for alleged offences under IPC and POCSO/SC/ST acts, citing sufficient disclosure of offence in FIR. No specific direction was issued regarding bail, referencing Apex Court guidelines.
Application dismissed; no specific direction issued regarding bail.
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. - 87
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15359 of 2022
Applicant :- Mahendra Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amrendra Pratap Singh,Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 06.04.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 15200 of 2021, under Sections 354, 504, 452 I.P.C. & 3 (1) SC/ST Act & 7/8 POCSO Act, PS Dubaulia, District Basti, pending before Additional Judge/Sessions Judge/Special Session Judge (POCSO) Act, Basti.
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. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
On perusal of the record, the Court finds that the allegations made in the first information report disclose commission of a cognizable offence and those allegations have found support from the material collected during the course of investigation on the basis whereof the police has laid a charge sheet against the applicant.
This Court in exercise of its power under section 482 Cr.P.C., is not required to assess the correctness of the allegation and the reliability of the material collected during the course of investigation, the prayer to quash the charge sheet and the consequential proceeding is rejected.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the applicant and there may be coercive processes issued against the applicant by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the applicant.
As the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific direction need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex court.
With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off.
Order Date :- 13.12.2022/AKT
Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI Date: 2022.12.15 11:23:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the chargesheet and proceedings should be allowed.
Whether specific directions should be issued regarding the applicant's bail prayer.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherFollowed¶11
_Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahendra Chaudhary
State of U.P.
Another
Dr. Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
