Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC25 Oct 2018A482/33871/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against the applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding offences under IPC and SC/ST Act, as disputed facts preclude adjudication. The Court directed the trial court to expedite bail applications within 45 days without coercive action and ensure interim bail consideration on the same day.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; no coercive action for 45 days; bail to be expeditiously decided with interim bail consideration on the same day.

Vishnukesh @ Arju Dwivedi and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33871 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vishnukesh @ Arju Dwivedi And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the cognizance order dated 12.06.2018 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 150 of 2018 (State vs. Vishnukesh Dwivedi and another), whereby the applicants Vishnukesh and Sabha Devi have been summoned for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5)A and 3(1)(d)(dha) S.C./S.T. Act Police Station Karchana, District Allahabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that from the perusal of First Information Report, no offence is made out against the applicants. He further contended that applicants were not arrested by police during investigation.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel in opposition contended that the material on record is sufficient justifying initiation of criminal proceedings against the applicants.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶12

However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court / court concerned.

¶13

In view of order passed by this Court on 23.01.2018 in

¶14

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 43217 of 2017 (Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State) , it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail applications and also pray for interim bail, their prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day and the regular bail shall be decided thereafter by affording an opportunity of hearing to the victim or his dependent as per the mandate of Section 15A(5) of the SC/ST Act.

¶15

For a period of 45 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants.

¶16

With the aforesaid directions, the instant application stands disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 25.10.2018

¶18

VG..

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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