Disposed

Ram Kishor and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2018A482/12101/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the applicant's prayer to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 452, 323, 504, and 506 IPC, holding that the complaints disclose an offence. The court directed that bail applications must be decided within the same day of filing and forbade coercive action for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Quash application refused; bail to be decided on same day; no coercive action for 30 days.

Ram Kishor and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12101 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Kishor And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of complaint case no. 591 of 2017 (Ashok Kumar Vs. Ram Kishor & others) under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Salempur, District Bulandshahr as well as summoning order dated 18.12.2017 pending before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Bulandshahr.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that from the material brought on the record, no offence is disclosed against the applicants. The present prosecution launched against the applicants is wholly mala fide as such, the present proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court and further contended that during investigation applicants were not arrested by police.

¶8

He further contended that applicant Ram Kishore has lodged an Non Cognizable Report against Anand @ Banti, Minu and Jeetu sons of opposite party No. 2 (Ashok Kumar) and in counter blast, the present complaint has been instituted against the applicants on the basis of false allegations.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in passing impugned order by the trial court.

¶10

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 applicants.

¶11

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the complaint case as well as summoning order passed in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶12

However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicants are punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. Police has submitted charge sheet. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.

¶13

In view of order passed by this Court on 23.01.2018 in Application under Section 482 No. 43217 of 2017 (Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State) , it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail

¶14

application, prayer for their bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.

¶15

For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants.

¶16

With the above directions, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., is disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 13.4.2018 Jaswant

Ram Kishor and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kishor and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh @ Saurabh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Km. Saloni Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Vs State and Others

Sunil Yadav and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vinod Goel Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mehandi Hasan and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.