Dismissed

Virendra Kuamr Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Oct 2022A482/32849/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the application to quash criminal proceedings initiated under various IPC sections for assault and mischief, holding that a prima facie offence was disclosed. However, the court directed that bail be considered if applicants surrender within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Prima facie offence disclosed; quash pleas refused. Bail to be considered upon surrender within three weeks.

Virendra Kuamr Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32849 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Virendra Kuamr Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet no. 37 of 2022, dated 24.02.2022 and cognizance/ summoning order dated 30.06.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 8557 of 2022 (State Vs. Virendra Kumar Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 263 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 325, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Suriyawan, District Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi), pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist, Bhadohi at Gyanpur.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that on 13.12.2021 at about 5:00 PM, the applicants armed with lathi, danda and iron rod reached at the place of incident and tried to demolish the boundary wall raised by opposite party no.2 and on being asked to refrain, they started hurling abuses and assaulted the victims. On account of assault made by the applicants, Shiv Pujan, Ram Pujan, Dharmendra, Nand Lal Bind, Baijanti Devi and Raj Kumari suffered injuries and have been medically examined.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are wholly innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that allegations made in the FIR are false, cooked up and concocted made just with an intention to drag them in criminal court and as such, entire proceedings be quashed.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer and has submitted that from perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶11

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly disclosed against the applicants.

¶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 entire proceedings is refused.

¶13

However in case, the applicants appear/ surrender before the court below within three weeks from today and apply for bail, their 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 the parties.

¶14

For a period of three weeks from today or till the date of appearance/ surrender of the applicants before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive actions shall be taken against the applicants.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.10.2022 Nadim

¶17

Digitally signed by NADIM ALAM Date: 2022.10.21 09:40:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Virendra Kuamr Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kuamr Yadav and 3 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

Deepika (Minor) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Danish and 5 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Jeetu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhilesh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ladle Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Mariyam Nisha Vs State of U.P. and Another