Dismissed

Manish Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2022A482/9002/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A and 325 IPC, the court found allegations disclosed a cognizable offence supported by investigation material. The prayer to quash the chargesheet was rejected. Bail proceedings were reserved.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; bail proceedings reserved to lower court per Apex Court guidelines.

Manish Kumar 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. - 9002 of 2022 Applicant :- Manish Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Somendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶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. 5093 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 276 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 325, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Tirwa, District Kannauj, pending in the court of Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannuaj as well as to quash the charge-sheet No.290 of 2020 dated 27.10.2020 and also to quash the cognizance order dated 20.02.2021.

¶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 :- 8.8.2022 Abhishek Singh

¶12

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH Date: 2022.08.10 11:48:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manish Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar 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

Iqbal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ayushi Bharti Vs State of U.P.and 7 Others

Smt. Kamar Jahan and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishal and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Moinuddin Vs State of U.P.and Another

Bhupendra Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another