Single judge quashed summons and charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as facts were disputed and should be tried. Applicant discharged; bail application disposed of with direction for expeditious hearing by trial court.
Summons order and charge sheet quashed. Bail application disposed with direction to consider it expeditiously.
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.
Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39257 of 2022
Applicant :- Ravi @ Dimple Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sushant Prakash Tiwari,Vipin Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash the summoning order dated 15.2.2021 as well as charge sheet dated 7.1.2021 arising out of case Crime No. 717 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420 IP, P.S. Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment.
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, lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 , State of M.P. Vs Awadh Kishore Gupta and others [(2004) 1 SCC 691, and Dr. Monica Kumar and Another Vs State of UP and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 781 . 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. or 245 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.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as charge sheet is refused.
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 applicants in view of the judgment in the case Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922 .
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
approaches the trial court for bail, same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the court below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra) .
As such application has no force and is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.2.2023 RavindraKSingh
Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the summons order and charge sheet should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as no offence is disclosed.
Whether bail application should be dealt with under the guidelines of Satendra Kumar Antil at this stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192Referred¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283Referred¶8
State of M.P. Vs Awadh Kishore Gupta and others [(2004) 1 SCC 691Referred¶8
Dr. Monica Kumar and Another Vs State of UP and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 781Referred¶8
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922Relied on¶10
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ravi @ Dimple
State Of U.P.
Shekhar Kumar Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
