In this s. 482 Cr.PC application, High Court refused to quash summons in alleged offence but directed applicants to surrender within 30 days for bail. No coercive action to be taken for that period.
Quashing refused; leave to surrender for bail within 30 days with no coercive action if complied.
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. - 55 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37167 of 2018 Applicant :- Kapil Manchanda And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.
Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 27.7.2018 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 2835 of 2018 (Sonia v. Kapil Manchanda) under sections 323,406,420 IPC, Police Station- Mahila Thana, district- Meerut pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants are disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
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 submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under section 482 Cr.PC. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283 .
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.
However, it is directed, that in case applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of applicants in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57)ALR 290, as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC). 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the above directions, present application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 14.11.2018/ssm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application under section 482 Cr.PC praying for quashing of proceedings be allowed.
Whether to direct appearance and surrender by applicants for bail consideration within a specific period.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur v. State of PunjabReferred¶7
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶7
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. P.P. SharmaReferred¶7
State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶7
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283 · Who else cites this
Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P.Referred¶9
Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57)ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersReferred¶9
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kapil Manchanda
Anr
State Of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
