The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 504 IPC and 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, noting disputed facts. It directed expedited bail consideration per Smt. Sakeena and stayed coercive action for 60 days or until surrender.
Application for quashing refused; coercive action stayed for 60 days; bail to be considered expeditiously.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34760 of 2016 Applicant :- Amresh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Tripathi
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. in opposition and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.18 of 2016 arose in Case Crime No. 121 of 2016 (State Vs. Amresh) under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. & 3 (1) (X) SC/ST Act, Police Station Nawabganj, District Allahabad.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that from the material brought on the record, no offence is disclosed against the applicant. The present prosecution launched against the applicant is wholly mala fide as such, the present proceedings are sheer abuse of the process of the court.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made and contention thereof raised by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that material on record is sufficient for justifying initiation of entire proceedings and passing of the impugned cognizance order by the court below.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out against the applicant.
All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case is refused.
However, none of the aforesaid offences alleged against applicant is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. The police has submitted charge sheet. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.
In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and another v. State of U.P. and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190 , it is directed that in case the applicant files his bail application and also pray for interim bail, his 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.
For a period of 60 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.12.2018 Ashok Gupta
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings under Sections 323, 504 IPC and 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act should be quashed due to alleged mala fides.
Whether coercive action against the applicant can be stayed pending bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Sakeena and another v. State of U.P. and anotherExplained¶11
2018 (2) ACR 2190
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Amresh
State Of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
