Disposed

Munni and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 May 2018A482/16473/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under Sections 452, 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., the court rejected the quash prayer due to factual disputes. However, directing surrender within 30 days, the court kept the non-bailable warrant in abeyance for bail considerations.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to quash the order dated 27.05.2016 and entire proceedings is refused; however, the non-bailable warrant is kept in abeyance for 30 days, and the prayer for bail will be considered if appli

Munni and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16473 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Munni And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Chand,Dushyant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 27.05.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 4993 of 2011 (State Vs. Naresh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 37 of 2006, under Sections- 452, 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Dankaur, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-I, Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶7

The contention of learned 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 purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the materials brought on record, it does not appear to be a fit case to quash the impugned order. The prayer to quash the same is hereby refused, at this stage as the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶9

However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and attending facts and circumstances of the case, as have been brought on record, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days and no more from today and apply for bail, their 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 Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶10

For a period of 30 days and no more, from today, the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicants shall be kept in abeyance.

¶11

The present application stands disposed of .

¶12

Order Date :- 10.5.2018 A. Singh

Munni and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munni and 3 Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maya Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Payas Jain and another Vs State of U.P. and 3 others

Nirmala Devi and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Raju @ Mohammad Usman and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Rajvansi Vs State of U.P. and Another