The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings, holding that disputed questions of fact preclude quashing at this stage and that the applicant must seek discharge in the trial court.
Application for quashment dismissed; applicant directed to apply for bail.
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. - 33 of 2022
Applicant :- Brahampal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Ashok Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The applicant through this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 11.4.2020, as well as cognizance order dated 16.6.2020 and entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 99 of 2020, under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Chandpur, district-Bijnor.
The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has submitted that 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 applicant.
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 applicant. 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 applicant has 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.
After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material brought on record, this Court find that there is no justification for quashing the prosecution of the aforementioned case.
The application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is directed that if the applicant applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the settled
law laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021. Order Date :- 18.2.2022 Faridul
Digitally signed by Justice Ajit Singh Date: 2022.02.21 10:43:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet under sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC discloses an offence against the applicant.
Whether the prosecution was instituted with malafide intention for harassment.
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 HaqReferred¶10
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶13
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Brahampal
State Of U.P.
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
