Allahabad High Court Reiterates Permissible Instances of Interference Under Section 482 of CrPC

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

On 30th September 2020, Allahabad High Court refused to interfere in a matter on the quashing of the case, Dayaram Yadav (Vakil) vs State Of U.P. And Another. The Court stated that there was no prima facie case made out by the Trial Court.

Background of the Case

On 7th December 2019, at around 6 pm, the Accused (Dayaram Yadav) who is a practising Advocate had entered the grocery store of the victim. He had questioned her about her shop. When she had closed the store and went home, the Accused had followed her. Thereafter, the accused entered her house and had molested her by catching her sari. He had made abusive remarks in the name of her caste. Further, he continued to threaten her.  

Submissions at the Court

The Counsel for the Accused stated that he had been falsely implicated due to village rivalry. He argued that, initially, the FIR was lodged under Sections, 354, 452, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(2) (v) under the SC/ST Act. Later on, based on the statement recorded by the victim under Section 164 of CrPC, the case was converted under Sections 376  and 511 of IPC and there was no material difference under Section 164 of CrPC. 

It was also stated that the victim’s house was not in public view and there were no public witnesses. The Counsel further stated that no medical reports supported the Prosecution. Hence, the Counsel prayed for the quashing of all proceedings, under Section 482 of CrPC.

Contrarily, the Learned AGA argued that the Accused misused his power as an Advocate, tried to commit rape and humiliate the victim. The Learned AGA also pointed out that all the arguments rendered by the Applicant’s Counsel should be considered after the investigation done by the trial court.

Court’s Decision

Given the above submissions, the learned Judge Rajendra Kumar-IV referred to several precedents given by both the High Court, as well the Apex Court. The judgments rendered in the precedents opined that the High Court was not to embark on an inquiry relating to the validity of evidence available. Thus, the powers under Section 482 of CrPC, were a matter of exception, and not the rule.

Thus, the Court dismissed the application under Section 482 of CrPC stating that the issue cannot be considered before the prima facie case is made out. Thus, the High Court refused to intervene in the matter at this juncture, as it was not a case of grave injustice.  


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -