Dismissed

Bachchu and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2022A482/34915/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court refused an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving assault and intimidation per the Bhajan Lal guidelines, as prima facie offence was disclosed. The court ordered bail hearing within ten days and suspended coercive actions during that period.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; bail hearing directed; coercive action kept in abeyance for ten days.

Bachchu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34915 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Bachchu And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Chandra Uttam 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 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the charge sheet No. 246/01/19 dated 27.7.2019 and cognizance order dated 18.10.2019 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 94/12/19 of 2019 (State Vs. Hakim & others) arising out of case crime no. 246 of 2019, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Highway, District- Mathura, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-Vth, Mathura.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the F.I.R., it is alleged that on 27.3.2019 at about 6 a.m., the applicants armed with lathi, danda and sariya forcibly entered in her house and started hurling abuses and further assaulted the victim by lathi, danda. On account of assault made by the applicants, Hardevi and Satish Yadav suffered injuries and have been medically examined.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants 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 applicants and the present case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment, as such, impugned charge sheet, cognizance 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 applicants and as such, impugned charge sheet, cognizance order and entire criminal proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶10

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the statements of the witnesses recorded

¶11

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 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 quashing the impugned charge sheet, cognizance order and entire criminal proceedings is refused.

¶13

However, in case the applicants appear before the court below within ten days 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 both the parties.

¶14

For a period of ten days, coercive action issued against the applicants shall remain kept in abeyance.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 1.11.2022 KU

¶17

Digitally signed by KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.11.01 17:34:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bachchu and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bachchu and 4 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

Abdul Hasan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonpal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Chandra Patel and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Obaidur Rehman Vs State of U.P and Another

Rajaram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shrre Satveer Singh Vs State of U.P.