Dismissed

Shyam Bahadur v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2023A482/40258/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an order rejecting a discharge petition. The court held that disputed factual defenses could not be adjudicated at this stage and found no illegality in the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the discharge rejection order is dismissed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40258 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shyam Bahadur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Naveen Kumar Srivastava, holding brief of Mr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, 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 for quashing the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, District Bhadohi in Session Trial No.252 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.02 of 2022, under Sections 320 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Bhadohi, District Bhadohi whereby the application for discharge of the applicant was rejected.

¶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. At the time of alleged incident, the applicant was residing at Mumbai and on the ground of Section 120-B IPC, the applicant has been implicated in the present case. Initially the impugned FIR has been lodged against the four accused persons including the applicant and after investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. Further submission is that the applicant has filed discharge application taking all ground that he has not instigated the co-accused to commit the murder of the deceased and he has no concern with the alleged incident nor he has talk with mobile phone and nor there is any CDR in the case diary nor he has paid any money to co-accused Nagendra Patel and Deepak Patel, but the court below without appreciating all these facts has wrongly rejected the discharge application vide order dated 11.11.2022. 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

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. supporting the impugned order,

¶9

vehemently opposed and has submitted that while passing the impugned order, the court below has considered all aspects of the case. Nothing remain left to be considered.

¶10

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.

¶11

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned order as well as the material brought on record, I am of the view that the impugned order is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons. The impugned order does not suffer from any, illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error and is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons, hence, requires no interference by this Court. The application devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶12

The application is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 13.2.2023

¶14

Ajeet

¶15

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

Shyam Bahadur v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Bahadur 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

Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. and Another Vs Smt. Ram Dulari

U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru Its Regional Manager and Others Vs Shanti and Others

U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Smt. Sarojini Devi and Others

Amar Jeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suneeta Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kumar Alam Vs State of U.P. and Another