Dismissed

Shree Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC30 Mar 2022A482/1958/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings and charge sheet was dismissed. The court held that the applicants raised disputed questions of fact requiring evidence appraisal, which cannot be decided under Section 482. Prima facie, an offence was made out.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings, charge sheet, and order was refused and the application was dismissed.

Shree Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6… — Municipal and Town Planning | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1958 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shree Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Aditya Kumar Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case S.T. No. 12/17 (State of U.P. Vs. Dhaniram) bearing Case Crime No. 235 of 2016, under Section 363, 366, 376-D, 328, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 POCSO Act, Police Station Talgram, District Kannauj pending before Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Kannauj and the charge-sheet no. 04 of 2017 dated 09.01.2017 as well as order dated 25.10.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Kannauj.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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. He further submits that the name of the applicant no.2 is Dharmveer and charge sheet has been filed against one Dhaniram, due to which, the applicant no.2 is being unnecessary harassed by the police.

¶8

At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves adjudication of a factual dispute and appraisal of evidence.

¶9

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 at this stage. 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. 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

¶10

Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

¶11

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶12

The application stands dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 30.3.2022 Abhishek Singh

¶14

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH Date: 2022.04.01 11:36:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shree Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

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

Akshay Saini and 2 Others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Its Principal Secretary Home and Another

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishnu Bhagwan Director M/S M.S. Trade Link Pravate Limited Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anurag and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Juganu Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Nikhil Soni and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another