Dismissed

Prem Shanker Dwivedi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Mar 2019A482/10010/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court refused quashing of proceedings for IPC offences. No offence disclosure or lack of malafide proven; disputed facts require trial. Bail conditional on surrender within 30 days; no coercive action during interim if applicants comply.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Conditional bail direction: surrender within 30 days allows bail consideration; no coercive action in interim if complied.

Prem Shanker Dwivedi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10010 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Prem Shanker Dwivedi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 5.8.2018 as well as proceedings of Case No.2841 of 2018 (State Vs. Prem Shanker and others) arising out of Case Crime No.143 of 2018, under Sections 323/504/506/325/308 I.P.C. Police Station Jhunsi, District Allahabad, pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, District Allahabad.

¶7

The contention of learned 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

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 applicants. 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. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228, or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the aforesaid proceedings is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their 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

¶11

grant of bail whichever is earlier, 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 :- 25.3.2019 Dev/-

Prem Shanker Dwivedi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Shanker Dwivedi and 2 Others 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

Layak Singh Kushwah Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sadanand Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Siraj Vs State of U.P.

Saroj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another