Dismissed

Chandrabhan Verma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2022A482/3787/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of criminal proceedings for allegedly false implication and malafide intent. The court held that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated at this stage and directed the applicant to seek discharge separately. However, it directed expeditious consideration of a pending bail application.

What did the court decide?

The quashing application is dismissed; bail prayer to be considered expeditiously.

Chandrabhan Verma Vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3787 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Chandrabhan Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakant Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The applicants through this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.1533 of 2020 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad arising out of Crime No.0367 of 2019, under Section 174-A I.P.C., Police Station Fatehgarh, district Farrukhabad, bearing charge sheet no.03 of 2019.

¶7

The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party no.2 as no such occurrence had taken place 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.

¶8

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 prima facie no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶9

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 applicants have 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.

¶10

After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record, this Court find that there is no justification for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforementioned case.

¶11

The application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶12

However, it is directed that if the applicant apply 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 .

¶13

Order Date :- 17.2.2022 R./

¶14

Digitally signed by RAJEEV KUMAR SACHDEVA Date: 2022.02.19 15:25:36 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandrabhan Verma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrabhan Verma v. State of U.P.

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

Pawan Kumar Pal Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Dilshad @ Anna Vs State of U.P and Another

Radhey Chaubey Vs State of U.P and Another

Abhishek Yadav and 6 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Jayanti Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another