Disposed

Pradeep Bharathdwaj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2019A482/14653/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash criminal proceedings filed under Section 482 Cr.PC involving Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. Instead, it granted a conditional restraint on coercive action for 30 days, requiring the applicant to appear and apply for bail. A 30-day deadline was set for appearance to avoid coercive measures.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings refused; coercive action restrained for 30 days contingent on applicant's appearance and bail application; otherwise coercive action permitted.

Pradeep Bharathdwaj Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14653 of 2019 Applicant :- Pradeep Bharathdwaj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Nandan Pandey,Sanjeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhinav Prasad learned AGA for the State.

¶4

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer seeking stay/quashing of criminal proceedings under section 498A, 323,506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, arising out of Case Crime No. 73 of 2018, Police Station- Juhi, District- Kanpur Nagar (State v. Pradeep Bharathdwaj) as well as summoning order dated 30.10.2018, under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, and 3/4 of D.P. Act, passed by and pending before the ACMM-III, Kanpur Nagar.

¶5

The contention of learned 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 purpose of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶6

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.PC. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283 .

¶7

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.

¶8

However, it is directed, that in case applicant appears and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of applicant in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57)ALR 290, as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him/them.

¶9

With the above directions, present application is disposed of.

¶10

Order Date :- 16.4.2019 ssm

Pradeep Bharathdwaj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Bharathdwaj 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

Mohd Imran and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lal Chand Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Prakashi Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sartaj and and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rojan Shah Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others