Disposed

Ram Milan Nishad v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2018A482/39091/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where an impugned order summoned the accused. However, the applicant was granted 30 days to surrender and apply for bail, during which no coercive action would be taken.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; applicant granted 30 days to surrender and apply for bail with no coercive action during this period.

Ram Milan Nishad Vs State of U.P. and another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39091 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Milan Nishad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh,Sudhanshu Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 proceeding of the complaint case no. 9 of 2018 (State Vs. Ram Milan Nishad) under Section 379 IPC and 3/4 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 and 22 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, P.S. Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar including the summoning order dated 9.2.2018 as well as N.B.W. order dated 9.4.2018 passed by the CJM, Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶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 entire proceeding of 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 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

¶11

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 :- 28.11.2018 Shekhar

¶14

[Chandra Dhari Singh, J.]

Ram Milan Nishad v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Milan Nishad 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

Sujata Tomar and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Akash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hashmat Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalit and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ms. Naina Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another