Dismissed

Sunita Vishwakarma and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2022A482/5955/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the quashing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that the case involves facts requiring trial and prima facie case exists. The court disposed of the matter by directing the applicants to surrender and apply for bail within 15 days for expedited hearing.

What did the court decide?

Application refused; direction to applicants to surrender, apply for bail within 15 days for expedited hearing.

Sunita Vishwakarma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5955 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sunita Vishwakarma And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kumar Dwivedi,Hanuman Kinkar

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicant today in the Court, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants to quash the entire proceeding of impugned charge sheet dated 15.12.2018 (State Vs. Prem Shanker Vishwakarma and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1108/2018 dated 03.12.2018, under Sections 323, 504, 325 I.P.C., P.S.- Handia, District- Prayagraj, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate -Prayagraj.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that initially NCR was lodged on 16.07.2015 i.e. N.C.R. No. 234/2015, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. Thereafter application under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. has been moved after the interval of three years. It is further submitted that injury of Soni Devi is simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object. Supplementary report of X-ray shows that there was fracture in right angle finger. It is submitted that this X-ray has been prepared after two months from the date of incident. It is further submitted that entire prosecution is mala fide and false and no case under Section 325 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant also filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 32167/2018 in which arrest of the petitioners, has been stayed till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶11

From the perusal of X-ray report, there appears a fracture and on the said basis Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the applicant under Sections 323, 504, 325 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on 03.09.2022 by the concerned Magistrate. So on the basis of materials on record, prima facie offence is made out against the applicant.

¶12

The prayer made by learned counsel for applicant is hereby refused.

¶13

It is settled law that during in disposal of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court. At the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. Question of facts shall be decided after hearing the evidence of both the parties. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary inherent power which should be exercised sparingly. It is not a fit case in which inherent power should be exercise in favour of the applicant.

¶14

At this stage, learned counsel for applicants only submitted that if a direction is issued to the trial court regarding bail, the order in that regard will meet the ends of justice.

¶15

The application is, therefore, disposed of with the direction that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court concerned within 15 days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid down in the cases of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Brahm Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (95) ACC 950.

¶16

Order Date :- 8.8.2022 Sharad/-

¶17

Digitally signed by SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.08.10 12:20:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunita Vishwakarma and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Vishwakarma 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

Ramanand Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Prakash Shukla and 3 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

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

RajKumar Vs State of up thru its principal secretary home and 2 others

Mustkeem Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others