Dismissed

Chandra Kant Tripathi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 May 2022A482/6670/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings based on malafide intentions. The court held that adjudicating factual disputes and contradictions in evidence falls outside the scope of Section 482 and refused the relief.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash the charge-sheet No. 01 of 2021 and criminal proceedings dismissed.

Chandra Kant Tripathi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6670 of 2022 Applicant :- Chandra Kant Tripathi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶3

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

¶4

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet No. 01 of 2021, dated 23.02.2021 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case Crime No. 336 of 2020 (State Vs. Shivendra), under Sections 307, 323, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, DistrictBudaun.

¶5

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants 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. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶6

At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves adjudication of a factual dispute and appraisal of evidence.

¶7

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 at this stage. There are more contradiction between FIR, statement of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and version of Investigating Officer. 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 .

¶8

The reliefs as sought by the applicant is refused.

¶9

The application stands dismissed.

¶10

Order Date :- 26.5.2022/Abhishek Singh

¶11

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH Date: 2022.05.30 11:29:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandra Kant Tripathi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Kant Tripathi and 2 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

Sunil Kumar Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nempal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

Mahendra Kushwaha and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Chanda Vs State of U.P.and Another

Manoj Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rameshvar Vs State of U.P. and Another