Dismissed

Guddu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2018A482/13/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 452, 323, 504, and 506 IPC. The court held that disputed questions of fact require trial and dismissed the quashing application. It directed bail to be decided expeditiously upon surrender and stayed coercive action until 20.2.2018.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Bail to be considered expeditiously on surrender. Coercive action stayed until 20.02.2018.

Guddu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Guddu & 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh 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

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No. 3625 of 2017 (State Vs. Guddu and others) under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Swar, District Rampur arising out of case crime No. 0431 of 2017 pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Rampur.

¶7

The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.

¶8

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. 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 .

¶9

The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶10

However, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably, on the same day, 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.

¶11

No coercive action shall be taken against the applicants till 20.2.2018.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 4.1.2018 Jaswant

Guddu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Chand @ Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahmood Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sugreev Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sukhram and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another