Partly allowed

Sanjeev Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2018A482/2957/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 406 and 506 IPC, holding that disputed questions of fact precluded quashing. The court refused to quash the proceedings but directed expeditious bail consideration upon surrender and stayed coercive action for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing refused; 30-day stay on coercive action granted; bail to be considered upon surrender.

Sanjeev Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2957 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjeev Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.K. Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri R.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 8629 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Sanjeev Yadav and another) under Sections 406, 506 IPC, Police Station Nazirbad, District Kanpur Nagar arising out of chargesheet in case crime no. 126 of 2014 and further prayed to quash the cognizance order dated 15.3.2016 pending before the learned C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.

¶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 applicant. 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.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶10

However, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below and apply for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably, on the same day, 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

For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the present case.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 5.2.2018 Jaswant

Sanjeev Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Singh 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

Genda Lal Vs State of U.P.

Alior Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Raghuvar Si Ngh Vs Man Singh

Ram Briksh Giril Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Narjis Fatma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Pratap Singh @ Karmveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and and 2 Ors.