Dismissed

Dudh Nath Saroj and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2022A482/5268/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant applied to quash criminal proceedings and chargesheet under Sections 323, 308, 504 I.P.C. Court rejected quash prayer as allegations support cognizable offence. No specific bail directions issued citing Apex Court guidelines. Application disposed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash charge sheet and proceedings rejected; no specific bail directions issued.

Dudh Nath Saroj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5268 of 2022 Applicant :- Dudh Nath Saroj And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.C. Maurya,Tej Bahadur Saroj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukesh Kumar Upadhyay

¶3

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶4

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

¶5

This application has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 12200 of 2021 (State Vs. Dudh Nath and Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 227 of 2021, under Sections 323, 308, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Bhadohi, District Badhohi as well as to quash the charge-sheet No. 191 of 2021 dated 06.10.2021 and also to quash teh cognizance order dated 24.12.2021 passed in aforesaid case.

¶6

On perusal of the record, the Court finds that the allegations made in the first information report disclose commission of a cognizable offence and those allegations have found support from the material collected during the course of investigation on the basis whereof the police has laid a charge sheet against the applicants.

¶7

This Court in exercise of its power under section 482 Cr.P.C., is not required to assess the correctness of the allegation and the reliability of the material collected during the course of investigation, the prayer to quash the charge sheet and the consequential proceeding is rejected.

¶8

At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the applicants and there may be coercive processes issued against the applicants by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the applicants.

¶9

As the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific direction need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex court.

¶10

With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off.

¶11

Order Date :- 26.7.2022/Abhishek Singh

¶12

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH Date: 2022.07.28 10:22:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dudh Nath Saroj and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dudh Nath Saroj 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

Matadeen Vs State of U.P. and Another

Malti Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bindu Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Oters

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tej Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Praval Pratap and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another