Single judge dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a charge sheet and criminal proceedings on grounds of malafide prosecution, noting that disputed facts necessitated a trial rather than quashing.
Application for quashing refused; applicant directed to surrender and 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. - 42
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4284 of 2022
Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Bind Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no.1 and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the charge sheet dated 20.05.2021 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No.1292 of 2021 (State vs. Jitendra Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0023 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Farrukhabad.
The contention of learned 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 purpose of causing harassment.
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, and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .
In view of the above, the relief as sought by the applicant in the instant application is refused.
However, considering the aforesaid alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned court below within four weeks from today and in case applies for bail, the bail application of the applicant shall be disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law and keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.
With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.5.2022 SKD
Digitally signed by SURJIT KUMAR DEY Date: 2022.05.19 19:01:44 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet discloses an offence against the applicant warranting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶10
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jitendra Kumar
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
