The High Court rejected an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, holding that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence. The Court declined to issue bail directions, relying on Supreme Court guidelines.
Prayer to quash charge sheet and consequential proceedings rejected; no bail directions issued.
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. - 17940 of 2022
Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Singh Yadav,Rohit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 88 of 2022 (State Vs. Mahendra Patel & Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 257 of 2021, under Section 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 325 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station Sarai Mamarej, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Allahabad.
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 applicants.
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 applicants submits that the applicants have so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the applicants and there may be coercive processes issued against the applicants by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the applicants.
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 :- 27.7.2022/Abhishek Singh
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH Date: 2022.07.30 13:16:18 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings under Section 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 325 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act should be quashed in public interest.
Whether directions to the lower court should be issued for considering the bail prayer of the applicants given they have not been arrested.
Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a cognizable offence and require judicial sanction for quashing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶10
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
Kamlesh Kumar
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
