Bench refused to quash chargesheet and cognizance in criminal trial. Court held disputed facts must await trial court discharge application. Applicants directed to file discharge within one month.
Application dismissed; discharge application filed within one month; no coercive action till discharge decided.
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. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2518 of 2022
Applicant :- Dipti And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Bind Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C., application has been filed for quashing the impugned chargesheet dated 7.8.2021 and cognizance order dated 9.12.2021, as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 7246 of 2021 (State vs. Anil Kumar and another), arising out of Case Crime no. 185 of 2020, under Section 420 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, districtFarrukhabad, pending in the court of CJM, Farrukhabad.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no. 1 is the daughter of opposite party no. 2. As per High School certificate she is major and she has solemnized marriage with applicant no. 2 and she has given her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in favour of applicant no. 2. Further contention is that initially the police has submitted final report in this matter. Later on on the application of opposite party no. 2 the matter was further investigated and police has wrongly submitted chargesheet against the applicants and on that basis the trial court has wrongly taken cognizance of the offence under Section 420 I.P.C.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants.
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 applicants. 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 Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge under Sections 239 or 227/228 and 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application a proper application for the said purpose raising all the grounds/grievances which have been taken in this application or which may have been taken. for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39] has held
that when charge sheet has been submitted and it has been challenged by way of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court, the High Court is not in a position to weight probabilities and re-appreciating the material, if High Court does it, it may be time consuming exercise and the legislative policy of expeditious disposal will hamper. At this stage, this Court is not in a position to weight the factual matrix of the case properly and accused has a right against charge sheet to file a discharge application before the trial court and the trial court may decide his discharge application, if there is no evidence against him.
After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the material brought on record. I find that there is no justification for quashing the prosecution of the aforementioned case.
The applicants shall file a discharge application before the concerned court within one month and that application shall be decided by the court concerned within next two months. No further time will be given to the applicants.
The application is accordingly disposed of with a direction that till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
Order Date :- 21.2.2022
Faridul
Digitally signed by FAREEDUL HASAN Date: 2022.02.23 10:23:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the disputed questions of fact prevented adjudication prior to discharge proceedings.
Whether the applications were disposed of with directions to file a discharge application instead of quashing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶9
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶9
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¶9
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. Ramesh SinghReferred¶9
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39] · Who else cites this
8 provisions across 7 enactments
Dipti
Anil Kumar
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
