Rajendra Asthana and anr. Vs. State of U .P. and anr.

Rajendra Asthana and anr. vs State of U .P. and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 02, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/911283

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/911283
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Zaidi, J.
Decided On: Aug 02, 2010
Case Number: U/S 482/378/407 No - 3026 of 2010
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA, J.] These writ petitions are filed under articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of India, with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 20.11.2008, marked as ann-M and ann-G respectively, issued by the R2. (only in so far it relates to the petitioner). as the same is illegal, unjust, arbi...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 227, 482, 426, 192, 283; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sectioins 406, 504, 506; SC/ST, Act - Sections 3 (1), (10).

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajendra Asthana and anr.

Advocate Rana Mritunjay Singh, Adv.

Respondent

State of U .P. and anr.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 227, 482, 426, 192, 283; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sectioins 406, 504, 506; SC/ST, Act - Sections 3 (1), (10).

Excerpt

[mr. justice a s bopanna, j.] these writ petitions are filed under articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of india, with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 20.11.2008, marked as ann-m and ann-g respectively, issued by the r2. (only in so far it relates to the petitioner). as the same is illegal, unjust, arbitrary. malafide. unreasonable and violaive of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of india and etc.......of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no offence is disclosed against the petitioners and the petitioners have been roped in this case with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment due to enmity. from the perusal of material on record at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this court under sections 482 cr.p.c.3. at this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the supreme court in cases of r.p. kapur versus state of punjab, air 1960 sc 866, state of haryana versus bhajan lal, 1992 scc (cr) 426, state of bihar versus p.p. sharma, 1992 scc (cr) 192, and lately zandu pharmaceutical works ltd. versus mohd. saraful haqe and another (para 10), 2005 scc (cr.)283. the disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.4. moreover, the petitioners have got a right of discharge under section 227 cr.p.c., through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court. in the event such an application is filed within one month from today, the trial court is directed to consider and dispose it off within a period of two months from the date of it's filing.the prayer for quashing the impugned order and proceedings is hereby refused.5. it is, however, directed that in case the petitioners appear within fifteen days from today and move application for bail, the same shall be considered by the trial court in view of the law laid down by the full bench of this court in srimati amrawati and another v. state of u.p. reported in 2004 cbc page 705 the petition is accordingly disposed of.

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, leaned A.G.A. for opposite party no. 1 and perused the record.

2. Notice to opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with. By means of this petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the charge sheet bearing charge sheet no. 9 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No. 99 of 2010, under sections 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (X) SC/ST, Act, police station-Hasanganj, District-Unnao. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no offence is disclosed against the petitioners and the petitioners have been roped in this case with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment due to enmity. From the perusal of material on record at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under sections 482 Cr.P.C.

3. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Versus Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr) 426, State of Bihar versus P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr) 192, and lately Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Versus Mohd. Saraful Haqe and another (Para 10), 2005 SCC (Cr.)283. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

4. Moreover, the petitioners have got a right of discharge under section 227 Cr.P.C., through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court. In the event such an application is filed within one month from today, the trial court is directed to consider and dispose it off within a period of two months from the date of it's filing.

The prayer for quashing the impugned order and proceedings is hereby refused.

5. It is, however, directed that in case the petitioners appear within fifteen days from today and move application for bail, the same shall be considered by the trial court in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Srimati Amrawati and another v. State of U.P. reported in 2004 CBC page 705 The petition is accordingly disposed of.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2010 Same Parties Rajendra Asthana and anr. vs State of U .P. and anr. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Zaidi, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 227, 482, 426, 19...

Criminal