SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Arati And Another vs State Of Up And Another on 7 March, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 68

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 8880 of 2019

Applicant :- Smt. Arati And Another

Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Bhaiya Ghanshyam Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Sri S. Shahnawaz Shah and Sri Mohd. Nuruddin Khan, learned counsel jointly filed Vakalatnama on behalf of O.P. No. 2, is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 22.12.2017 of Case No. 146A of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 866 of 2017, under section 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sahatwar, District Ballia pending in the court of C.J.M. Ballia.

The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

From the perusal of the 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 submission 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.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the charge-sheet dated 22.12.2017 in the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

Order Date :- 7.3.2019

Masarrat

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2019 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh