The High Court rejected the applicant's prayer to quash the FIR, charge sheet, and cognizance order in a criminal case under Sections 323, 504, 506, 147, and 452 IPC, finding the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence.
Prayer to quash the proceedings, charge sheet, and cognizance order was rejected.
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. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2900 of 2022 Applicant :- Ram Sharan And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of Case No. 10 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 400 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 147, 452 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Fatehpur, District Farrukhabad pen ding before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Farrukhabad as well as to quash the charge sheet dated 21.11.2021 and cognizance order dated 04.01.2022 passed in the aforesaid case.
On perusal of the record, the Court finds that the allegations made in the first information report disclose commission of a cognizable offence and those allegations have found support from the material collected during the course of investigation on the basis whereof the police has laid a charge sheet against the applicants.
At this Court, in exercise of its power under section 482 Cr.P.C., is not required to assess the correctness of the allegation and the reliability of the material collected during the course of investigation, the prayer to quash the charge sheet and the consequential proceeding is rejected.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the applicants and there may be coercive processes issued against the applicants by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the applicants.
As the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific direction need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex court.
With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off. Order Date :- 6.4.2022/S.Ali
Digitally signed by SHAUKAT ALI Date: 2022.04.07 13:44:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR disclosed commission of a cognizable offence meriting quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether to issue directions to the trial court regarding bail consideration without arrest.
Whether the applicants were required to be arrested in the instant case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherExplained¶8
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021)
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Sharan And 4 Others
State of U.P.
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
