Dismissed

Raju and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2018A482/34203/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court refused the prayer as disputed questions of fact remained. The Court directed that bail applications be decided on the same day and no coercive action be taken for 45 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; bail to be considered on same day; no coercive action for 45 days.

Raju and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34203 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Raju And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding in pursuance of summoning order dated 04.10.2017 in Complaint Case No. 2291 of 2016 (Shiv Kumar Vs. Raju and another) under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Kurara, District Hamirpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that appellant no. 1 Raju has lodged F.I.R. against Bhoora and Nandu brother of Opposite Party No. 2 Shiv Kumar and one unknown person under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(i)(v) SC/ST Act. In counter blast, this complaint has been filed by Opposite Party No. 2 Shiv Kumar against applicants with false allegations.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in passing impugned order by the trial court.

¶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. 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.

¶10

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

¶11

None of the aforesaid offences against applicants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years.

¶12

In view of order passed by this Court on 23.01.2018 on Application under Section 482 No. 43217 of 2017 (Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State) , it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 26.9.2018 Sharad/-

Raju and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju and Another 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

State of U.P. Vs Kishor

State of U.P. Vs Fareed

State of U.P. Vs Chabboo Sahani and Another

Smt. Anita Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Gaurav Kalara and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another