Court refused quashing of FIR and charge sheet alleged to be misuse of process regarding stone-pelting during cremation. Appellant granted 30-day stay from coercive action.
Grant of 30-day stay on coercive action conditional on appearance and bail application.
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. - 17
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5168 of 2018
Applicant :- Chandan Singh Pradhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case Crime No. 493 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 332, 353, 352 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Amendment Act, Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura, pending before learned C.J.M., District Mathura.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that he is village pradhan who has been falsely implicated by O.P. No.2 at the instance of the complainant, Hardam Singh of Crime No. 493 of 2017, P.S. Vrindavan which was got registered by Hardam Singh under Sections 498A, 323, 304B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act in respect of death of his daughter for demand of dowry; no specific role has been assigned to him in the present occurrence; if the proceedings in the above case is allowed to continue that would amount to misuse of the process of law, hence, proceedings need to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand pointed out that present accused was present on the spot when the daughter of Hardam Singh was cremated and when the police tried to take out the body from the funeral pyre, the present accused along with others named as well as 25-30 unknown persons had tried to create hindrance by pelting stones upon police. The complainant of the present case, S.I. In-charge, Vinod Kumar Mishra, has made statement that the present accused was involved in throwing stones upon the police personnel when the dead body of the daughter of Hardam Singh was being taken away from funeral pyre. From the evidence which has come on record, cognizable offence is made out against the accused which may not be disbelieved at this stage without trial, hence, case for quashing the charge-sheet is not made out.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may 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 judgement 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 applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 6.3.2018 A. Mandhani
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 147, 148 IPC, 332 IPC, 352 IPC, 353 IPC and Criminal Amendment Act should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶9
2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶9
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Chandan Singh Pradhan
State Of U.P.
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
