Dismissed

Gopal Vishwkarma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 May 2018A482/13378/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 application seeking to quash a summons for offences under IPC and SC/ST Act, the Court held that disputed questions of fact barred quashing. The prayer was refused, but the applicant was granted 45 days to surrender and apply for bail without coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing dismissed; 45 days granted for applicant to surrender and apply for bail without coercive action.

Gopal Vishwkarma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13378 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Gopal Vishwkarma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Roy Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 19.01.2018 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Varanasi in Final Report No.13/2016 (Manish Kumar vs. Gopal Vishwakarma), under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, Police Station Lohta, District Varanasi.

¶7

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 purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶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 applicant. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the summoning order dated 19.01.2018 passed in the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be

¶11

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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 45 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 4.5.2018 Jitendra

Gopal Vishwkarma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Vishwkarma 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

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ekhlakh Aahmad and another Vs State of U.P. and another

Tabassum and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Radhey Shyam and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pal Singh @ Jaspal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Dr Mustaq Husain Vs State of Up and Another