Disposed

Sunil Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2019A482/11125/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge, in the Supreme Court's exercises of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., refused the prayer for quashing criminal proceedings due to a prima facie case against the applicant. The Court directed that the applicants can surrender within 30 days to get their bail application considered without coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings refused; applicants granted 30 days to surrender and apply for bail without coercive action.

Sunil Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11125 of 2005

¶3

Applicant :- Sunil Kumar And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- I.K. Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of criminal complaint case no.23 of 2004 (Smt. Geeta Devi vs. Sunil Kumar and others), u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Nagar, district Basti, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, District Basti.

¶6

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.

¶7

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 relate to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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 he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶8

The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings is refused.

¶9

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court . For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 27.2.2019

¶13

m.a.

Sunil Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar and 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

Naurangi Lal Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Sheetal Vs State of U.P. and Others

Dalvir Singh and Others Vs State of U.P.

Ram Saran and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Pradeep @ Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zahida Khatoon Vs State of U.P. and Others