The High Court refused to quash the charge sheet or summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that disputes are factual. It directed the lower court to consider a bail application within 45 days of surrender if filed.
Application to quash refused; direction issued for bail disposal if surrender is made within 45 days.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:135137
Court No. - 91
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22987 of 2023
Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 12.08.2001 and summoning order dated 05.06.2023 in Case No.2474 of 2001, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC arising out of case crime no.29 of 2001.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicant had not committed any offence. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the applicant. Essential ingredients to constitute offence are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out certain documents and statements in support of the contention.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer.
From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view of the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicant are not made out. 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 a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 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. The prayer made in the application is refused.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that a direction may be issued to the Court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicant.
Hence it is directed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within 45 days from today the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 45 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken/given effect to against the applicant. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicant for surrender before the court concerned.
With the above observations, the application stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 10.7.2023 Sanjeet
Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prima facie case in the prosecution is made out from the materials on record.
Whether the application for quashing the charge sheet and summoning order should be allowed.
Whether a direction for expeditious disposal of the bail application can be issued.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R. P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶10
R. P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶10
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P. P. SharmaReferred¶10
State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶10
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para 10) 2005 SCC (Cr. ) 283 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rakesh Kumar
State of U.P.
Gajendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
