Dismissed

Mahendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2024A482/32000/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court applied the Supreme Court's precedents regarding the scope of Section 482 CrPC. After examining the record, the court held that the allegations clearly disclosed a cognizable offence amenable to trial and could not be quashed at this stage. Consequently, the application to quash proceedings was refused.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash proceedings and stay further proceedings refused; direction issued that a future bail application shall be considered expeditiously upon surrender.

Mahendra Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:155446

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32000 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mahendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alauddin,Fakhruddin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance order dated 7.6.2012 as well as the entire proceedings in Case No. 2392 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No. 95 of 2010, under Sections 379 and 411 IPC, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar and further to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicant that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicant has not committed any offence. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the applicant. Essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Recovery is false and planted and there is no independent witness of the same. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer.

¶10

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

¶11

As is evident, all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992

¶12

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 . From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicant are not made out and the record shows that a cognizable offence is clearly made out against the applicant. Sufficient evidence has been collected against the applicant during the course of investigation. Hence, prayer made in the application is refused.

¶13

In the last, learned counsel for the applicant has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicant be given in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 .

¶14

Hence, it is observed that in case the applicant surrenders before the Court concerned and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil case (supra).

¶15

With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 23.9.2024 safi

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Yadav 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

Smt Neelam Sharma vs State of U.P.

Vikram Bhardwaj vs State of Up

Sunil Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Jay Karan vs State of Up and Another

Sushil Kumar vs State of Up and Another

Krishna Nand Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another