Dismissed

Kailash Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Oct 2018A482/33822/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the court refused to quash the cognizance order against the applicant under the Essential Commodities Act, noting a prior finding of a cognizable offence, but directed consideration of bail and barred coercive action for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action to be taken for 30 days; bail prayer to be considered expeditiously if applicant surrenders.

Kailash Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33822 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Kailash Nath Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Mishra,Budhi Sagar Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶6

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

¶7

2. This application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") has been filed to quash the cognizance order dated 16.2.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar whereby applicant was summoned for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that from perusal of record, no offence is made out against the applicant. Several villagers have submitted affidavit before the Investigating Officer with averment that they have received essential commodities. However, the Investigating Officer has not considered the affidavit filed by the villagers. State has preferred civil proceeding as well as criminal proceeding against the applicant.

¶9

4. In Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16478 of 2017 (Kailash Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. There is no any provision in the Cr.P.C., that Investigating Officer can consider affidavit during investigation.

¶10

5 . The prayer for quashing the cognizance order passed in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶11

6 . 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 in accordance with law.

¶12

7. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant.

¶13

8. With the above directions, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., is disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 25.10.2018 Jaswant

Kailash Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Nath Pandey 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banti Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashalam and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bablu Vs State of U.P. and another

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vishnukesh @ Arju Dwivedi and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.