Dismissed

Hari Narayan v. State of U.P. and an Other

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2023A482/23494/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench dismissed an Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking to quash a charge sheet and cognizance order. The court held that prima facie an offence was disclosed based on the N.C.R. and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, as disputed facts cannot be adjudicated at this stage.

What did the court decide?

None; prayer for quashing charge sheet, cognizance order, and criminal proceedings is refused.

Hari Narayan Vs State of U.P. and an Other — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:185927

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23494 of 2019

¶4

Applicant :- Hari Narayan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And An Other Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant today in Court, is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 26.9.2014 and cognizance order dated 17.12.2014 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2964 of 2014 (State Vs. Hari Narayan) arising out of N.C.R. No. 165 of 2013, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Mehandawal, District- Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the NCR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicant and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the NCR and the material collected during the course of investigation and the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., prima facie, offence is clearly made out against the applicant.

¶11

Moreover, 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 CrPC. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble

¶12

Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶13

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations made in the NCR and the statement of the witnesses recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. prima facie, offence is clearly disclosed against the applicant.

¶14

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the charge sheet, cognizannce order as well as entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶15

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 25.9.2023 KU

¶17

Digitally signed by :- KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hari Narayan v. State of U.P. and an Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Narayan v. State of U.P. and an Other

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

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kapoor and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rais and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sant Bal Krishnadas Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ashish Vs State of U.P.