The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings instituted for offences under IPC Ss. 308, 323, 504, 506, directing the applicant to seek bail separately.
Application to quash proceedings refused; bail to be considered separately.
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. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44085 of 2022
Applicant :- Dhruj Bind And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kalamuddin,M. A. Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding and cognizance order dated 10.12.2018 of case crime no. 334 of 2018, State Vs. Dhruj Bind and others, under section 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Bhadohi, District Bhadohi pending in the court of C.J.M, Bhadohi.
As per the allegations made in the F.I.R. it is alleged that on 12.8.2022 at about 8.00 p.m. the applicants forcibly entered into the house of first informant and started hurling abuses. On being asked to refrain from hurling abuses, the applicants who are real brothers of the husband of O.P. No.2 assaulted him by Lathi, Danda, Irod Rod and bricks. On account of assault made by the applicants, Rambabu suffered injury and has been medically examined.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicants and the present case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment, as such, entire proceeding be quashed.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, entire proceeding can not be quashed.
From the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the
statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants.
At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble 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 prayer for quashing the entire proceeding is refused.
However, in case the applicants appear before the court below and apply for bail, their bail application be considered and disposed of in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773.
With the aforesaid observations, this application filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.1.2023 R
Digitally signed by :- RAM ASARE MORYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings under S. 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. can be quashed.
Whether the alleged prima facie offence makes out a case for non-quashing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶12
AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶12
1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶12
1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶12
2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 · Who else cites this
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶13
(2021) 10 SCC 773 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dhruj Bind And 3 Others
State of U.P.
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
