Partly allowed

Dinesh and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Jun 2018A482/20007/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. case, the High Court of Allahabad refused to quash criminal proceedings against the applicants, holding that mere denial of offence is not a ground for quashing. However, the Court granted a reprieve from coercive action for 30 days if the applicants surrender and apply for bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; coercive action stayed for 30 days pending surrender and bail application.

Dinesh and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20007 of 2018 Applicant :- Dinesh And 4 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶4

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

¶5

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 04.12.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 1235 of 2016 (Ramesh Vs. Mahraj Singh), under sections 149, 435, 452, 506, 504 IPC, P.S. Mirzapur, District Shahjahanpur. He further prayed for staying the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1235 of 2016 (Ramesh Vs. Mahraj Singh), pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur.

¶6

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 purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At last he submitted that the applicants are ready to appear before the court and to face the trial. He sought some time to surrender before the court below.

¶7

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 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.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the proceedings of complaint case no. 1235 of 2016 including summoning order dated 04.12.2017 passed in the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶9

However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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 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 30 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶10

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

¶11

Order Date :- 1.6.2018 Prajapati

Dinesh and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh and 4 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puran Lal Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Faizan Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Bind Vs State of U.P.

Archana Pandey Vs State of U.P.

M/S Devrah Baba Ice and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. through Managing Director Manish Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madhuri Alias Kumari Vimlesh Vs State of Up and Another