Dismissed

Rishi Kumar Gupta and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2018A482/2602/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash proceedings arising from accidental damage to a public toilet during building demolition, the Court held that the case involves disputed facts. The prayer for quashing was refused, but liberty was granted to file a discharge application within one month with a direction for its speedy disposal.

What did the court decide?

Quashing refused; liberty granted to file discharge application within one month; court below directed to decide discharge application within three months; no coercive action during pendency.

Rishi Kumar Gupta and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2602 of 2003

¶3

Applicant :- Rishi Kumar Gupta & Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,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 entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 3023 of 2002 under section 427 IPC read with section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 P.S. Badhshahi Naka,, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of M.M-IV, Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are the owner of building No. 49/65, Naya Ganj, Naughara in the city of Kanpur, which was a hundred years old structure and the same was also in a dilapidated condition, therefore, they have decided to renovate the same by demolishing it. For that purpose, they have engaged the labours for demolishing the building on 9.6.2002 and the basement of the building was being excavated and an opened public toilet which was situated adjacent to the wall of the building accidentally got damaged which was never intended either by the labours or by the applicants themselves. It is further stated that applicants are having very bonafide intention, therefore, on the next day i.e. on 10.06.2002 written a letter to Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Nigam Kanpur informing him of the accidental damage done to the public toilet and undertook to bear all the expenses which might be necessary for the repair/construction of the said public toilet. Before taking any action on the application of the applicants, an FIR under section 427 IPC read with 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 has been lodged at Police station, Badshahi Naka, Kanpur Nagar. Ultimately, the applicants have deposited the requisite money amounting to Rs. 20,803/- and a receipt of the said money was

¶8

also annexed as Annexure-4 to the application. It is next submitted that after receiving the said money, Assistant Municipal Officer, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar written a letter to S.H.O, Badshahi for dropping the criminal proceeding pending against the applicants, but ignoring the same, present charge sheet has been filed.

¶9

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, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and lastly Amanullah and another Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2016(6) SCC 699.

¶10

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶11

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants has prayed that a liberty may be given to the applicants to appear before the court below through counsel to move discharge application and the court below may be directed to decide the discharge application within the stipulated period.

¶12

Accordingly, liberty is given to the applicants to appear before the court below through counsel to move discharge application within one month from today.

¶13

This application is disposed of with a direction to the court below that in case the applicants appear before the court below through counsel within a month from today and move a discharge application, the same shall be considered and decided within three months thereafter in accordance with law. Till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶14

It is made clear that in case the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, no further time shall be given to them and Court may proceed in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.12.2018 Sartaj

Rishi Kumar Gupta and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishi Kumar Gupta and 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

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajendra Singh Alias Banti and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Radhey Shyam Singh Patel and Anr. Vs 1ST Additional Session Judge Sonbhadra and Others

Vinay Kumar Rai and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jalees Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh and Others Vs State of U.P.