Partly allowed

Ashok Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Sept 2018A482/34514/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Benches of Allahabad High Court refused to quash the charge sheet in a case involving IPC sections 452, 504, 506, and 354(B). The court held that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated via Section 482 Cr.P.C. While dismissing the quashing plea, it directed that if the applicant surrenders and applies for bail within 30 days, coercive action shall not be taken.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Moratorium on coercive action for 30 days if applicant surrenders and moves for bail within that period.

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

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34514 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ashok Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Irfanul Huda 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 of the charge sheet dated 18.08.2017 as well s entire criminal proceedings in case no. 512 of 2018 (State Vs. Ashok Yadav), arising out of case crime no. 531 of 2017,under sections 452, 504, 506, 354(B) IPC, P.S. Saurikh, District Kannauj, pending in the court of ACJM, Chhibramau, District Kannauj.

¶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 charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Agency 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

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 28.9.2018 Prajapati

¶14

[Chandra Dhari Singh, J]

Ashok Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Yadav 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

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

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

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