Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1886 (ALL)

Dadau Sai v. State of U. P.

2014-06-30

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI II

body2014
JUDGMENT Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet filed against the applicant in case crime no. 191 of 2013, under Sections 401 I.P.C., Police Station Payagpur, District Bahraich. 3. In the case of State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2006) 2 SCC (Crl.) 272, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that "When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge." 4. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the same case has further held that "It would not be proper for the High Court to analyze the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with." 5. Same view has been reiterated by Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar & Other Vs. Madan Lal Kapur, (2013) 3 SCC 330 . 6. In view of the above settled legal position, while deciding the instant petition, all the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant are not tenable, as it will require discussion and evaluation of evidence recorded during investigation. 7. In view of the above, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. However, on the request of the learned counsel for the applicant, it is provided that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and moves for bail within 30 days from today, then the court below shall decide his bail application keeping in view the law laid down in the cases of Sheo Raj Singh @ Chhuttan Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2009(65) ACC 781 and Pradeep Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009(65) ACC 443. Till then, no coercive measure will be adopted. State of U.P. and Others 2009(65) ACC 781 and Pradeep Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009(65) ACC 443. Till then, no coercive measure will be adopted. If the applicant fails to appear within the stipulated time, then this protection shall not be available to him.