Disposed

Smt. Sushma Dubey and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Jun 2023A482/13829/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Quash Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed to quash the charge sheet, cognizance order, and arrest order. The Court refused to quash the proceedings, holding that the dispute relates to facts and prima facie case. It then directed courts below to hear and dispose of any future bail applications expeditiously pursuant to Satender Kumar Antil.

What did the court decide?

Quash prayer refused; directions issued for expeditious hearing of future bail applications.

Smt. Sushma Dubey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:123232

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13829 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Sushma Dubey And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwaini Mishra,Dhruv Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the charge-sheet dated 30-01-2021 under Sections 419, 420 IPC arising out of Case Crime No. 0493 of 2020 as well as cognizance order dated 19-05-2021 and order of nonbailable warrant dated 15.02.2023 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi passed in Criminal Case No. 8927 of 2021 as well as the entire proceedings.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case just to pressurize and harass the applicants. The applicants have never committed any offence as alleged against them. Further submission is that no offence against the applicants are disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider as no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶9

From the perusal of 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 applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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 M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, 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 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the

¶10

applicants have got a right of discharge before the court below and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶11

The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the above mentioned case is hereby refused.

¶12

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicants in view of the judgment in the case Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922 .

¶13

In the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for deciding of the bail application. For that purpose, the cases have been divided under four categories. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines, while considering the bail application. This Court has no doubt, that as and when, the applicants approach the trial court for bail, the trial court shall definitely follow the directions given in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) .

¶14

However, considering the nature of the allegations and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court concerned and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) .

¶15

With the above directions, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of finally.

¶16

(Prashant Kumar, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 1.6.2023 Jaswant

¶18

Digitally signed by :- JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Sushma Dubey and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sushma Dubey and Another 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

Sandeep Nigam vs Ajay Prakash Jaiswal

Sahkari Awas Nirman Evam Vitt Nigam Ltd. Lucknow Thru. Its Managing Director vs Babu Ram(Died) Thru. Smt. Rajeshwari and Others

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Its Manager Lko. vs Smt. Shivrani and 6 Others

Smt. Ruchi Rawat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prem Singh @ Pappu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Jain Vs State of U.P.