Dismissed

Ram Lal Gupta @ Sonu Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2018A482/435/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge quashed no section 482 application seeking to quash criminal proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act. Court held allegations raised disputed facts requiring trial and refused to quash, while directing expedient bail consideration upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of proceedings and cognizance order refused. Applicant directed to surrender and apply for bail to be considered expeditiously.

Ram Lal Gupta @ Sonu Gupta Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 435 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Lal Gupta @ Sonu Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Vishal Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 297 of 2016 (State v. Sonu Gupta) arising out of Case Crime No. 669 of 2013, under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, P.S.Nandganj, District- Ghazipur as well as the cognizance order dated 04.08.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District - Ghazipur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that no offence against the applicant is disclosed. Present case has been filed with a mala fide intention for the purpose of harassment. He further contended that the entire allegations made against the applicant are false and fabricated. The applicant is innocent and he has not committed any offence.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for quashing of the entire proceedings and congizance order and submitted that the material on record is sufficient justifying the filing of charge sheet and so taking cognizance in the aforesaid offence by the court below.

¶9

After considering the above submissions and the contents disclosed in the first information report and charge sheet, I am of the view that no good ground is made out for quashing of the impugned charge sheet. At this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶10

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

¶11

Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.

¶12

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings and cognizance order is hereby refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that in case the applicant appear and surrender before the court below and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously, 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 judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶14

With the aforesaid directions, the instant application is finally disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 23.1.2018 I. Batabyal

Ram Lal Gupta @ Sonu Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Lal Gupta @ Sonu Gupta 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

Raj Vishambhar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Kapoor Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sukkhu Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Trivesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raghavendra @ Raghavendra Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another