Disposed

Prem Chandra Tiwari @ Prem Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Anothre

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2018A482/15438/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of an application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under U.P. SC/ST Act and Juvenile Justice Act. The court refused quashment, finding that a prima facie case exists. However, the applicant was granted liberty to seek bail upon surrendering within 45 days, under specified Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Application quashing is refused; applicant granted liberty to apply for bail upon surrender within 45 days.

Prem Chandra Tiwari @ Prem Kumar Tiwari Vs State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15438 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Prem Chandra Tiwari @ Prem Kumar Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anothre Counsel for Applicant :- Lakshmi Kant Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bipin Kumar,Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Lakshmi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Kumar Verma holding brief of Sri Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 26.3.2018 and summoning order dated 17.4.2018 as well as entire proceeding of S.T. No. 100 of 2018 (State of U.P. and Prem Chandra Tiwari @ Prem Kumar Tiwari), arising out of Case Crime No. 0172 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504 IPC, 18/22 Juvenile Justice (care and protection of children), Act, 2000 and 3(1) (da)/3(1) (dha) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Koirauna, District Bhadohi, pending in the court of A.D.J., Court No.1, Bhadohi.

¶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 purpose of causing 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 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.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶10

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.

¶11

However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶12

It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 9.7.2018/Mini

Prem Chandra Tiwari @ Prem Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Anothre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Chandra Tiwari @ Prem Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Anothre

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

Rahul Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Patel (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Richpal Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Zakir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Kumar @ Akash and 3 others Vs State of U.P. and another