Dismissed

Viresh Shakya v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2022A482/31992/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 CrPC application, the applicant sought to quash criminal proceedings alleging offences under IPC and SC/ST Act for assault and humiliation. The court held that an offence was prima facie disclosed and refused the prayer for quashing, while dismissing any disputed questions of fact.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the summoning order and entire criminal proceedings was refused. Bail application directed to be considered separately.

Viresh Shakya Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31992 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Viresh Shakya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mool Chandra Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 20.11.2021 as well as entire criminal proceeding of W.S.C.C. No. 21 of 2020 (Smt. Rajan Sri Vs. Viresh Shakya and others), under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) 11 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District- Etah, pending in the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Etah.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the F.I.R. which has been registered on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it is alleged that on 1.4.2019 at about 6 p.m., the applicants alongwith 3-4 persons reached at the plot of the complainant and demolished the wall and abused the victim the name of her caste with an intention to humiliate and intimidate her and assaulted the victim with kicks and fists and also undressed her and tried to outrage her modesty. On account of assault made by the applicant, Rajan Shri suffered injuries on her persons and has been medically examined.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R 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, as such, impugned summoning order and entire criminal proceedings be quashed.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, impugned summoning order and entire criminal proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶10

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned

¶11

counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie, offence is clearly disclosed against the applicant.

¶12

At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of law laid down by 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 prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order and entire criminal proceedings is refused.

¶13

However, in case the applicant appears before the court below and applies for bail, his bail application be considered and disposed of in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 after hearing both the parties.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 14.11.2022 KU

¶16

Digitally signed by KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.11.14 17:02:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Viresh Shakya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viresh Shakya 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

Hafeez Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Singh Vs State of U.P.

Dilip @ Bhola Vs State of U.P.

Murahu Ram Vs State of U.P and Another

Sartaj Alias Choni and Another Vs State of U.P. . and Another

Nand Kumar Pachauri and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another