Dismissed

Kedar Rajbhar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2023A482/41540/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court refused to quash the charge sheet and summoning order, holding that disputed questions of fact precluded interim relief, though it ordered expedited hearing of the pending bail application citing Satendra Kumar Antil.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash the charge sheet and summoning order dismissed; directions for expedited hearing of bail application issued.

Kedar Rajbhar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41540 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kedar Rajbhar And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Misra,Prakash Sharma

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants to quash the charge sheet dated 17.02.2021 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 23.09.2022 in Criminal Case No. 10937 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Kedar Rajbhar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 365 of 2020, under Sections- 147, 323, 308, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., Police StationRamkola, District- Kushinagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna with a further prayer to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment.

¶9

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 applicants. 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.

¶10

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 applicants have got a right of discharge and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶11

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as charge sheet as well as summoning order is refused.

¶12

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants 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.

¶13

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 applicants approach the trial court for bail through counsel, 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).

¶14

In view of the aforesaid, the present application stands disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 9.2.2023 Krishna*

¶16

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

Kedar Rajbhar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kedar Rajbhar and 4 Others 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

Severam Kasana Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Zainuddin and 15 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Brajesh and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Dhir Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Priyanka Vs State of U.P. and Another