Disposed

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

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2019A482/14666/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge rejected the application to quash an impugned order and pending criminal proceedings filed under Section 482 CrPC. The court held that disputed facts could not be adjudicated at that stage. Instead, it granted 30 days for the applicant to apply for recall of non-bailable warrant or surrender for bail, during which coercive action was stayed.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action against applicant for 30 days or until bail application disposal, subject to his applying for recall of N.B.W or surrender.

Rojan Shah Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14666 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rojan Shah Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Lallan Chaubey,Jaishankar Prasad Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Jaishankar Prasad Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer seeking quashing of order dated 18.2.2019 along with Case Crime No. 485/15 Criminal Case No. 975 of 2016 pending before the court of ACJM along with charge sheet under sections 498A, 323,504,342 IPC and 3/4 Act, Police Station-Dhumanganj, District- Allahbad.

¶7

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.

¶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 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 .

¶9

The prayer for quashing the order dated 18.2.2019 as well as proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case pending before the court concerned is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicant files an application for recalling of the non-bailable warrant issued against him within 30 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the applicant appears and surrenders 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).

¶11

For a period of 30 days from today or till disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶12

However, in case, the applicant do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶13

With the above directions, present application is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 16.4.2019 ssm

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Pradeep Bharathdwaj Vs State of U.P. and Another