SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ramjan vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 24 October, 2019


?Court No. – 12

Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. – 7607 of 2019

Applicant :- Ramjan

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Anr.

Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ali Rehan

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

This petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet arising out of Case Crime No.0200 of 2018, under Section 354 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (va) of S.C./SectionS.T. Act, Police Station-Shivgarh, District-Raebareli and the subsequent summoning order dated 29.09.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/SectionST Act, Raebareli in Criminal Misc. Case No.246 of 2018 (Sate vs. Ramjan).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the First Information Report has been lodged against the petitioner on the basis of false story. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he has wrongly been summoned in this case. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is ready to surrender before the court below and some protection may be granted to him.

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the petition.

However, in this matter, after investigation, Police has found a prima facie case against accused and submitted charge-sheet in the Court below. After investigation the police has found a prima facie case of commission of a cognizable offence by accused which should have been tried in a Court of Law. At this stage, there is no occasion to look into the question whether the charge ultimately can be substantiated or not and that would be a subject matter of trial. No substantial ground has been made out which may justify interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

From perusal of the record, it cannot be said that the cognizable offence is not made out against the petitioner. I do not find any sufficient ground to quash the aforesaid charge-sheet as well as the summoning order dated 29.09.2018.

However, it is provided that if the petitioner, Ramjan, surrenders before the court below within one month from today and moves an application for bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law and in terms of law laid down in the case of SectionSmt. Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P., 2005; Cr.L.J. 755, which has been affirmed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in SectionLal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2009) 4 SCC 437. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

It is made clear that in no case the aforesaid period shall be extended and no excuse shall be entertained.

After expiry of the aforesaid period, if the petitioner has not surrendered, then the authorities concerned shall have full liberty to take action in accordance with law.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Order Date :- 24.10.2019


[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation