Disposed

Satish Chandra and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jun 2018A482/20916/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was refused as disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated. Directions were issued for same-day bail consideration and cessation of coercive action for 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash refused. Directions for same-day bail consideration and no coercive action for 60 days issued.

Satish Chandra and 3 Others Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20916 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Satish Chandra And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vipin Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.182 of 2018 (State vs. Satish Chandra and others) arising out of Crime No.387 of 2017, under Section 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that from the material brought on the record, no offence is disclosed against the applicants. The present prosecution launched against the applicants is wholly mala fide, as such, the present proceedings are sheer abuse of the process of the court.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer made and submissions thereof advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and contended that the material on record is sufficient justifying filing of charge sheet and so taking cognizance in the aforesaid offence by the court below.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the charge sheet, cognizance order and entire proceedings in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶12

However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicants are punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. Police has submitted charge sheet. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial

¶13

court/court concerned.

¶14

In view of order passed by this Court on 23.01.2018 in Application under Section 482 No. 43217 of 2017 (Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State) , it is directed that in case the applicant files bail application, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.

¶15

For a period of 60 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants.

¶16

With the aforesaid directions, the instant application stands disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 7.6.2018 Deepika

Satish Chandra and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Chandra and 3 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tara and 10 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Mubarak Ali @ Mohd. Mubarik Ali and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Vs Shobha Devi and 2 Others

Sachin Prakash Rai and 2 Other Vs State of U.P. and Another

Niyaji Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and Another