The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the charge-sheet and proceedings. The court held that disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated at this stage and a mini-trial was not required.
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. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20514 of 2021
Applicant :- Amar Chand Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Its Additional Chief Secretory Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 21.07.2021 and cognizance order dated 28.07.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 17/770 of 2021 (State Vs. Amar Chand Sharma), arising out of Case Crime No. 599 of 2019, under Sections 420, 120-B, 170 IPC and Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Highway, District Mathura, pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Meerut.
As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that one Pramod Kumar had applied for grant of loan and for the sanction of which, one Vinod Kumar had demanded a sum of Rs.6,000/- for passing of the said loan, out of which, a sum of Rs,3,500/- had been paid to him. At the relevant time, the applicant was posted in the Office of District Gramudhyog, District Mathura and Vinod Kumar, who had no concern, whatsoever with the passing of the said loan, used to sit in the Office under the patronage of the applicant and used to deal with sanction of loan, accepting undue advantage.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.
Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that from perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicant and the present case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention, as such, entire proceedings be quashed.
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 applicant and as such, charge-sheet, cogniance order as well as entire proceedings cannot be quashed.
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 applicant. Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CrPC.
At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1455 of 2021 (State of Odisha Vs. Pratima Mohanty Etc.) has held that in Application under Section 482 CrPC, the Court is not required to hold a mini trial.
The prayer for quashing the charge-sheet, cognizance order as well as entire proceedings is therefore refused. Accordingly, this application under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.4.2022 Nadim
Digitally signed by NADIM ALAM Date: 2022.05.04 11:10:21 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prima facie case against the applicant demands quashing of the charge-sheet and proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶13
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶13
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶13
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶13
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 · Who else cites this
State of Odisha Vs. Pratima Mohanty Etc.Referred¶14
Criminal Appeal No. 1455 of 2021 (State of Odisha Vs. Pratima Mohanty Etc.)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amar Chand Sharma
State Of U.P. Through Its Additional Chief Secretory
Rajiv Gupta
Nadim Alam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
