Dismissed

Sugreev v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2018A482/62/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for attempted murder, the Court held that no offence was proven out and the matter involved disputed facts. The quashing prayer was refused, but the applicant was granted a stay until Feb 8, 2018, and directed that bail be decided expeditiously if he surrendered.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; bail to be considered expeditiously upon surrender; no coercive action till February 8, 2018.

Sugreev Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 62 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sugreev Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Bahadur Maurya 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

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the entire further proceeding of Criminal Case No. 5394 of 2017 (State Vs. Sugreev) under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Bishratganj, District Bareilly arising out of case crime No. 46 of 2017 pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Bareilly arising out of Case Crime No. 46 of 2017.

¶7

The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. The further contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that there is no any injury to the complainant.

¶8

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. 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.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the further proceedings in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶10

However, it is directed that in case the applicant appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided by courts below expeditiously, preferably, on the same day, 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.

¶11

No coercive action shall be taken against the applicant till 8.2.2018.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 4.1.2018 Jaswant

Sugreev v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugreev 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

Ravindra Yadav 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