Disposed

Ravindra Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2018A482/44/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the matter involved disputed facts for the trial court. The applicant was directed to surrender and apply for bail, which would then be decided expeditiously. The application was finally disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The application was disposed of; bail to be considered expeditiously on surrender.

Ravindra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ravindra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case NO. 5085 of 2017 (State Vs. Ravindra Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No. 566 of 2017, under Sections 354, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kalan, District Shahjahanpur including the charge sheet dated 24.08.2017 submitted by investigating officer and cognizance order dated 23.11.2017.

¶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 purposes of harassment. He further contended that the entire allegations made against the applicant are false and fabricated. The applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in passing of the aforesaid impugned charge sheet.

¶9

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. Dispute of facts is to be examined by the trial court on the basis of evidence, not by this Court at this stage.

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

¶11

However, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before court concerned and apply 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.

¶12

With the above directions, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of finally.

¶13

Order Date :- 4.1.2018 Sharad/-

Ravindra Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Yadav 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

Prem Chand @ Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahmood Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sugreev Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Sukhram and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another