Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings dismissed as prima facie case made out. Applicants directed to surrender and apply for bail within 30 days to avoid coercive action.
Applicants directed to surrender and apply for bail before trial court within 30 days; no coercive action during this period if complied with.
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. - 39922 of 2018
Applicant :- Ramautar And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prakash Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ram Prakash Patel, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Janeshwar Bankata, learned AGA and perused the record.
The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of complaint case no. 557 of 2018 and impugned summoning order dated 18.07.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Milak, District Rampur.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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.
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 applicants. 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.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. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under section 239 or 227/228, or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court concerned within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided by the court below expeditiously, if possible on the same day, in accordance with the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amarawati 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 applicants. However, in case 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 :- 12.11.2018 Arti
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the complaint case should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. given the lack of prima facie offence disclosure
Whether the prosecution was instituted with malafide intention for harassment
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR-290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramautar And 4 Others
State Of U.P. And Another
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
