Dismissed

Soni Mishra @ Sunil Mishra and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2018A482/7962/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench of his Hon'ble Court refused the application for quashing proceedings under Section 13 Gambling Act, holding that disputed questions of fact are outside the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Directs applicants to file bail application or surrender within three weeks to avoid coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing dismissed. Liberty to apply for bail or recall warrant within three weeks.

Soni Mishra @ Sunil Mishra and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7962 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Soni Mishra @ Sunil Mishra And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the chargesheet as well as entire proceeding of case no. 50130 of 2016 (State vs. Soni Mishra @ Sunil Mishra and another) arising out of case crime no. 716 of 2016, u/s 13 Gambling Act, P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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

All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the order impugned is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicants file an application for recalling of the non-bailable-warrant issued against them within three weeks from today, the said application may be considered and disposed as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within three weeks from today and apply for bail, their 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.

¶11

For a period of three weeks from today no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off. Order Date :- 14.3.2018 Dhirendra/

Soni Mishra @ Sunil Mishra and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soni Mishra @ Sunil Mishra and Anr. 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

Shahid Ali @ Shola Jaunpuri Vs State of U.P.

Chand Babu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saddiq Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kapil and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Nar Singh Gupta @ Nar Singh Prasad and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.