Dismissed

Deshbandhu v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2018A482/7354/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking to quash chargesheets under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 alleged to be malicious, the court refused the prayer but directed no coercive action for 30 days if the applicant surrenders and applies for bail.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action to be taken against the applicant for 30 days if he surrenders and applies for bail as per the directions given below.

Deshbandhu Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7354 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Deshbandhu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Vatsala Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the chargesheet dated 28.6.2017 submitted u/s 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955, P.S. Hasayan, District Hathras, registered as Case no. 2629 of 2017 (State vs. Deshbandhu) in case crime no. 0220/2017, pending before the A.C.J.M., Hathras.

¶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. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. Submitted that 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. The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant relate to disputed question of facts, 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 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶9

The submissions made by learned A.G.A. have force.

¶10

The prayer for quashing the chargesheet is refused.

¶11

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall 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.

¶12

For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for 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.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 8.3.2018 Dhirendra/

Deshbandhu v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deshbandhu v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Kallu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Bhola Vs State of Up

Noori@ Noor Hasan and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sameer Vs State of U.P.

chandreshwar shah Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan @ Kala and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another