Held that irrelevant factual disputes preclude quashing the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. Refused quash prayer but granted 30 days to surrender for bail consideration without coercive action.
Prayer for quashal refused; applicants granted 30 days to surrender and apply for bail without coercive action.
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. - 45
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23376 of 2022
Applicant :- Murari Lal Kushwaha @ Raj Kamal And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Shankar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 7130 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 194 of 2018, under Sections 304-B, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Koraon, District Allahabad pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad and further to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicants that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicants have not committed any offence. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the applicants. Essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Learned counsel for the applicants pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.
As is evident, 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 a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the 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 . From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that
offences levelled against the applicants are not made out. Hence, prayer made in the application is refused. Further, it is surprising that charge sheet was filed in the matter in the year 2019 but still applicants have not appeared before the Court concerned.
In the last, learned counsel has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of bail application of the applicants be given.
Hence, it is observed that in case applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants to surrender and apply for bail before the Court concerned.
With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of .
Order Date :- 11.11.2022
safi
Digitally signed by MAHBOOB SAFI Date: 2022.11.12 10:52:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prayer to quash the charge-sheet and proceedings under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable when disputes are purely factual.
Whether the applicants are entitled to an extension of time to surrender and apply for bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶10
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶10
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶10
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¶10
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Murari Lal Kushwaha @ Raj Kamal And Another
State Of U.P. And Another
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
Mahboob Safi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
