Dismissed

Mahendra Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2018A482/33374/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant sought quashing of summons under S. 482 Cr.P.C. claiming malafide prosecution. Court held disputed facts not for this stage, refused quashing. Appellant granted 30 days to surrender for bail consideration without coercive action.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action against applicant if he surrenders and applies for bail within 30 days, upon which bail application will be considered.

Mahendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33374 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mahendra Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Dixit,Anupam Shyam Dwivedi,Utkarsh Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 27.2.2018 passed by the ACJM-III, Gautam Budh Nagar in complaint case no. 1577 of 2017 (Jagdish Singh Vs. Mahendra Sharma) under Sections 420/406 IPC, PS Phase-II, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case with a further prayer to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

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

¶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 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.

¶9

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 passed in the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶10

However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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 applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 11.10.2018 Shekhar

¶13

[Chandra Dhari Singh, J.]

Mahendra Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Sharma 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

Santosh Singh Bhadauria and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Kapil Gaur and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bablu @ Aditya Kumar Vs State of U.P. and another

Chandra Sen Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Kanti Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Babu Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others