An application to quash criminal proceedings under S. 482 Cr.P.C. was rejected as allegations disclosed a cognizable offence. The court declined to issue directives for bail, referring to Apex Court guidelines.
Prayer to quash charge sheet and proceedings rejected; no specific direction issued 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. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9275 of 2022
Applicant :- Pinku And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants today in the Court, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 88 of 2019 (State Vs. Yaduvendra @ Rinku and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1076 of 2017 under Sections 323, 452, 376, 511, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali, District Etah, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah.
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.
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.
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.
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.
With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off. Order Date :- 21.7.2022 S.Ali
Digitally signed by SHAUKAT ALI Date: 2022.07.22 16:47:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 452, 376 IPC should be quashed on appearance of cognizable offence disclosed in FIR.
Whether directions should be issued to lower court regarding bail prayer pending for the applicants.
Whether quashing of charge sheet is maintainable when allegations disclose commission of cognizable offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶11
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pinku And 2 Others
Gautam Chowdhary
Shaikat Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
