REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

BADRI PRASAD Appellant

V/S

STATE OF U. P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ANKIT VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
NUPUR TALWAR VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. AFROZ MOHAMMED HASANFATTA [REFERRED TO]
R R CHARI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANDAS BHAGWANDAS MADHAVDAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL DAS SINDHI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
DARSHAN SINGH RAM KISHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
NIRMALJIT SINGH HOON VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
NAGAWWA VS. VEERANNA SHIVALINGAPPA KONJALGI [REFERRED TO]
DEVARAPALLI LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY VS. V NARAYANA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
A R ANTULAY VS. RAMDAS SRINIWAS NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH DE VS. ARCHNA GUHA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. MOHAMMAD KHALID:MOHAMMAD RASHID KHAN:ABDULAZIZ [REFERRED TO]
PEPSI FOODS LIMITED VS. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE [REFERRED TO]
KANTI BHADRA SHAH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
U P POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VS. MOHAN MEAKINS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS VS. ROSHANLAL AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
MATHAI VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. PASTOR P RAJU [REFERRED TO]
S K SINHA VS. VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD [REFERRED TO]
FAKHRUDDIN AHMAD VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [REFERRED TO]
U P POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VS. BHUPENDRA KUMAR MODI [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. MANMOHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BHUSHAN KUMAR VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH TALWAR VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS VS. ABANI KUMAR BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
EMPEROR VS. SOURINDRA MOHAN CHUCKERBUTTY [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
MEHMOOD UL REHMAN AND ORS. VS. KHAZIR MOHAMMAD TUNDA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. AFROZ MOHAMMED HASANFATTA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing alongwith Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State-opposite party.

(2.) The present application under Sec. 482 CrPC has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dtd. 20/11/2020 in Case Crime No. 402/2020 under Ss. 324, 323 and 504 Indian Penal Code Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly with a further prayer to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

(3.) The principal ground which is sought to be urged for seeking quashing of the proceedings is that the order dtd. 19/2/2021 passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance is without application of mind and has been passed mechanically without assigning any detailed reasons. It has been further argued that as per the FIR version, the weapon used in commission of offence could not be described to be a "dangerous weapon" so as to constitute an offence under Sec. 324 IPC and this aspect of the matter having not been examined by the Magistrate while taking cognizance of the charge-sheet, the order taking cognizance cannot be sustained. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has referred to the decisions in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate,(1998) 5 SCC 749. Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Utaranchal,(2008) 17 SCC 157. Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another,(2009) 67 ACC 532. and Vineet Agarwal and others Vs. State of U.P. and another,(Application u/s 482 No. 15450 of 2020, decided on 11/11/2020).

Click here to view full judgment.

BADRI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U. P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address