Disposed

Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2023A482/28853/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the application to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., noting disputes of fact must be resolved at trial. Directions were issued for the lower court to expedite the applicant's bail hearing based on Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings refused; directions issued for expedited hearing of bail application.

Chaman Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28853 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Chaman Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash the entire proceeding of criminal case as well as impugned summoning order dated 13.7.2022 as well as charge sheet dated 26.9.2021 in Criminal Case No.2442 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.0361 of 2020, under Sections 420, 506 IPC, Police Station Adampur, District Amroha.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to pressurize and harass the applicant, in fact, no such incident has taken place. Further submission is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider as no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. He also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

¶8

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 applicant. 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 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 applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, before the court below and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the above

¶10

mentioned case is hereby refused.

¶11

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

¶12

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 applicant approach the trial court for bail, the trial court shall definitely follow the directions given in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

¶13

However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F. I. R. and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case the applicant appears 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).

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 6.1.2023

¶16

Ajeet

¶17

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

Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaman Lal 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

Smt. Pravesh Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shabana Nizam Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Brajesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Aditi Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another