Dismissed

Ram Prakash and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2022A482/27709/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition seeking quashing of a charge-sheet, the court held that the grounds were capable of decision by the trial court under Neeharika Infrastructure guidance. The quashing prayer was refused, but bail consideration under Satender Kumar Antil was directed upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; direction to move bail application within 30 days if surrender.

Ram Prakash and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27709 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Prakash And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Janardan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A. G. A. and perused the record.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 16.9.2019 submitted in Case Crime No. 524 of 2018, under Sections-467, 468, 471, 120B and 506 I. P. C., P. S.-Kotwali, district-Mau pending in the Court of C. J. M., Mau.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the F. I. R. date and time of the incident is not mentioned and the same has been lodged by means of filing of application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. It is further submitted that after lodging of the F. I. R. applicants filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15934 of 2019; Ram Sakal and two others Versus State of U. P. and three others, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10.6.2019 staying the arrest of the petitioners till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. subject to their cooperating with the investigation of the case.

¶8

It is further submitted that the dispute involved in the present case is of purely civil nature and can only be adjudicated upon by the civil court, therefore, criminal prosecution of the applicants is wholly unwarranted.

¶9

Learned A. G. A. opposed the application.

¶10

From the perusal of record, it appears that grounds alleged in the application can be decided by the trial court, therefore, keeping in view the law laid down in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2020 SCC Online SC 850 , I do not find any cogent reason to quash the charge-sheet.

¶11

Therefore, the prayer for quashing of chargesheet is, hereby, refused.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants has confined his argument to the law

¶13

laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 and prayed for disposal of the bail application of applicants.

¶14

However, it is provided that in case the accused-applicants surrender before the court below and move bail application within a period of thirty days from today, the court below shall consider and decide the bail application according to the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

¶15

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 13.4.2022

¶17

¶18

Digitally signed by HEMANT RANJAN Date: 2022.04.28 18:08:21 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Prakash and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prakash and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

durbal urf sahil kumar nishad and 4 others Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home and Another

Sumit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Azhar Vs State of u. p. through principal secretary home and another

Vivek Mathura Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilshad Vs State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary (Home) and another

Abdul Rahama and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another