The High Court refused to quash proceedings under CrPC 482 but directed that if the applicant surrenders within 45 days, his bail application will be considered based on settled law.
Quashing of proceedings refused; bail deemed available if applicant surrenders within 45 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10199 of 2018
Applicant :- Komal Mallah Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- B.N.Singh,Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 16.02.2018 as well as proceeding of Criminal Case No. 24/2018 (State Versus Komal Mallah), under Section 354/323/506 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali Kalpi, District- Jalaun at Orai.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
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 applicant at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions 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 prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days and no more from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .
Order Date :- 6.6.2018 Prakhar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order passed in the prosecution proceedings under Sections 354/323/506 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act should be quashed.
Whether the applicant can be granted bail upon surrender before the court below within 45 days.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabExplained¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalExplained¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaExplained¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherExplained¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Komal Mallah
State Of U.P.
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
