Disposed

Vinod Kumar and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC13 Nov 2018A482/40404/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, the High Court declined to interfere, finding no manifest injustice. The Court remitted the bail plea to the trial court, directing disposal on merits within 45 days while staying coercive measures.

What did the court decide?

Directs the trial court to consider the bail application on its own merits within 45 days; stays coercive steps against applicants during this period.

Vinod Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40404 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anshu Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 21.06.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 24141 of 2017 (Munna Lal Gupta v. Vinod Gupta and Others) under Sections 351, 323, 504, and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') is sought to be invoked for quashment of the criminal proceedings.

¶8

It is well settled that power vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the object of advancement of the justice or in other words to secure the ends of justice. It is only where the judicial process is found to have been converted into instrument of oppression or harassment, this Court will step in to arrest manifest injustice. While malicious or mala fide institution of proceedings would be cases warranting inherent exercise of power, the court has to be cautious that the powers should not invade area set apart for specific powers conferred under Cr.P.C. (Vinit Kumar and others v. State of U.P. 2017 (13) SCC 369) .

¶9

Testing the facts of the instant case on the above set of the principles, I do not find that this case warrants any interference with the proceedings in question at this stage. Even on repeated query being made, learned counsel for the applicants could not point out any manifest injustice has occurred and that is likely to result in miscarriage of justice. The court after its due application of mind to the allegations made in the complaint and the averments made in the affidavit/ statements under section 202 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses, has come to take cognizance in the compliant case and has caused issuance of the summoning order, which, on the face of it cannot be faulted

¶10

with. It is well settled that the High Court cannot convert itself into a trial court and dwell into the disputed questions of fact. (Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. (2014) 7 SCC 215) . In any case this is not a stage to conduct microscopic examination of facts and evidence to thwart the prosecution case.

¶11

Thus, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for at this stage of the proceedings in question.

¶12

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants requests that their plea for bail may be accepted and appropriate directions may be issued to the court below in that regard.

¶13

I do not see that any specific direction is needed to guide the discretion of Court to grant bail or to refuse it and no direction is equally needed to give any time frame as no exceptional circumstance has been referred to in the present facts of the case.

¶14

However, their plea for consideration of bail has been made with an undertaking that they shall appear before the court below within 45 days from today to show his genuineness on one hand and bona fide to co-operate with the trial on the other.

¶15

I hereby direct court concerned to consider the bail application on its own merit and dispose of the same keeping in view the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶16

In the interest of justice, it is hereby provided that keeping in view of the undertaking given on behalf of the applicants, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants for a period of 45 days from today in pursuance of the criminal proceedings in question.

¶17

This application, accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 13.11.2018 Akram

Vinod Kumar and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar and 3 Others v. State of Up 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

Abdul Gani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Randheer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivkant and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Charan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another