Dismissed

Rajnarayan @ Ramnarayan and 4 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2022A482/9333/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court quashed the application seeking to quash chargesheet under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and S.C./S.T. Act. Court granted 30-day stay on coercive measures and directed bail consideration if applicants surrender within that period.

What did the court decide?

30-day stay on coercive measures; bail to be considered on surrender within 30 days.

Rajnarayan @ Ramnarayan and 4 Others Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9333 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rajnarayan @ Ramnarayan And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Surat Patel,Santosh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the chargesheet dated 2.10.2021 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.13/2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 68/2021, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. & Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Oonjha, District Bhadohi, pending before the court of Additional Session JudgeII (SC/ST Act), Bhadohi, with a further prayer to stay the aforesaid proceedings.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the instant first information report was lodged by the informant Gullu, alleging therein that on 15.09.2021, he was constructing a tin shed on his bhumidhari land bearing Gata No. 165/3, the accused persons came there with lathi-danda and started abusing and had also beaten him, Santoshi Devi, Gullu and Sheshdhar. They also called his name by caste denoting words and also threatened him with life. Whereas this entire version is concocted and manipulated. Injuries of informant’s side are not substantial, as they are of simple in nature. No offences, as alleged, are made out against the applicants. All the witnesses are family members and close relatives of informant/opposite party No.2. The informant was constructing the tin shed on the Gata No.165/3 whereas his land is Gata No.156/3.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. submitted that in view of FIR version and statement of witnesses, a prima facie case against accused applicants regarding offences alleged against them is there.

¶9

From the perusal of the material on record as well as statements of witnesses and injured and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants at this stage. 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

¶10

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 .

¶11

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶12

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773.

¶13

For a period of 30 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶14

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 16.9.2022 Kamarjahan

¶16

Digitally signed by KAMARJAHAN ANSARI Date: 2022.09.19 13:22:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajnarayan @ Ramnarayan and 4 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnarayan @ Ramnarayan and 4 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Priyanka Vs State of U.P and 9 Others

Krishna @ Rinku and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Haidar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Ranjeet Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another