Disposed

Naveen Yadav and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC17 May 2018A482/17240/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the applicant's prayer to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 406, 506, 419, and 420 IPC due to disputed factual questions not suitable for Section 482 consideration. However, the court directed that bail pleas would be considered if applicants surrendered within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings refused; directions issued for bail consideration upon surrender within 30 days.

Naveen Yadav and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17240 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Naveen Yadav And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Prajapati,Nisar Uddin 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

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet no. 163 of 2017 dated 14.07.2017, cognizance order dated 01.02.2018 and the entire proceeding of Case No. 132 of 2018, under Sections 406, 506,419, 420 I.P.C. arising out of Case Crime No. 200 of 2017, under Section 406 and 506 IPC, Police Station- Sumerpur, DistrictHamirpur, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur.

¶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

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 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 entire proceeding 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 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 Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 17.5.2018 Lbm/-

Naveen Yadav and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Yadav and Anr. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navab Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Sahu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Badshah Alias Jamaluddin and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Akhtar and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Narayan Das and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Srikrishna Vs State of U.P. and Anr.