Partly allowed

Vijay Kumar Chaudhary and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2022A482/9348/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this indemnity application, the court rejected the prayer to quash the chargeheet and summing order. While refusing to direct the lower court on the bail application, the court noted existing apex court guidelines. The matter was disposed of without granting the quashing prayer or specific bail directions.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing rejected. No specific directive issued on bail; lower court to consider apex court guidelines.

Vijay Kumar Chaudhary and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9348 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Chaudhary And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mani Ram Verma,Sudhir Kumar Agarwal

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application has been filed for quashing of the summoning order dated 30.1.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.665 of 2018 (Chanda Devi Vs. Vijay Kumar and others), under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 354-B IPC, Police Station Ghughali, District Maharajganj, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj.

¶8

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 applicant.

¶9

At 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.

¶10

At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the applicant and there may be coercive processes issued against the applicant by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the applicant.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off.

¶14

Order Date :- 14.7.2022 Deepika

¶15

Digitally signed by DEEPIKA SINGH Date: 2022.07.15 16:39:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Kumar Chaudhary and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Chaudhary and 5 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

Vinay Kumar Shahi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Manju Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aman Soni Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivam Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Girand Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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