Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR cognizance order and seek bail directions dismissed. Court held disputed facts require trial. Bail request dismissed as application no longer has force.
Prayer for quashing refused; request for bail directions dismissed.
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. - 4968 of 2022
Applicant :- Gaurav Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dutt Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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 applicants to quash the charge sheet dated 18.5.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 28.06.2019 and further proceedings pursuant to charge sheet in Case No.579 of 2019 (State Vs Gaurav Singh and another), P.S. Bela, District Auraiya arising out of Case Crime No. 16 of 2019, under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC, Pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya, District Auraiya.
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.
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.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as charge sheet is refused.
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 .
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, the trial court shall definitely follow the directions given in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra) .
As such application has no force and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.1.2023 RavindraKSingh
Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet and cognizance order under IPC Sections 420, 504, 506 should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether directions should be issued to the trial court to consider the applicants' bail application in light of Supreme Court guidelines.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherFollowed¶10
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Gaurav Singh and Another
Shekhar Kumar Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
