Dismissed

Ramu Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC28 Sept 2018A482/34509/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge criminal application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant. The court held that no offence was disclosed and the prosecution was mala fide. Consequently, the prayer for quashing was refused due to doubtful facts, but coercive action was stayed for four weeks if the applicant surrendered.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refusal; coercive action stayed for four weeks if applicant surrenders and files bail.

Ramu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34509 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ramu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and 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 entire criminal proceedings including charge-sheet dated 18.01.2018 in S.T. No.19 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) (10) S.C. & S.T. Act, P.S. Kishni, District Mainpuri.

¶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 chargesheet and the criminal proceedings 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 four weeks 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 four weeks from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 28.9.2018 Asha

¶14

(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)

Ramu Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu Yadav 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

Alamgir and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Faisal Ali Vs State of Up and Another

Sunil Rajpoot and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Shishupal Balmiki Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajesh Maurya Vs Additional Session Judge/Ftc District and Session Court, District Varanasi and Another

Ashok Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another