Dismissed

Smt. Savitri and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2018A482/25166/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an application to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 420/467/471/468/120B IPC. While refusing the quashing plea, the court directed that if the applicants surrender within 30 days and file a bail application, no coercive action shall be taken against them. The application was disposed of. Quality assessment based on the text provided suggests the judgment contains subst

What did the court decide?

Relief: If applicants surrender to lower court within 30 days from date and apply for bail, no coercive action shall be taken against them.

Smt. Savitri and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 44 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25166 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Savitri And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶3

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

¶4

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of the case no. 228 of 2014 (Smt. Nanesh Kumari Vs. Kampooter and others) under Sections 420/467/471/468/120B IPC, PS Nai Ki Mandi, District Agra as well as summoning order dated 18.9.2012 passed by the ACJM, Court No. 7, Agra including the NBW dated 24.2.2018 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra with a further prayer to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶5

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. They sought some time to surrender before the court below.

¶6

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.

¶7

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the entire proceeding of the court below and summoning order dated 18.9.2012 as well as NBW dated 24.2.2018 passed in the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶8

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.

¶9

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

¶10

Order Date :- 9.10.2018 Shekhar

¶11

[Chandra Dhari Singh, J.]

Smt. Savitri and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savitri and 2 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

Abdul Saleem and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shamim Hasan and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sharad Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aazad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another