Partly allowed

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

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2019A482/14745/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court refused to quash a charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as prima facie offence was disclosed. Applicants granted 30-day stay on coercive action if they surrender and apply for bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Bail considered if applicants appear and surrender within 30 days. No coercive action for 30 days if conditions met.

Sartaj and and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14745 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sartaj And And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 16.1.2018 in Case Crime No.0454 of 2017 in Case No.9790 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 33, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Brahmpuri, District Meerut, pending in the Court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.

¶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 applicant. 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 summoning order 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 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.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 16.4.2019 Dev/-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sartaj and and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 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

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

Pradeep Bharathdwaj Vs State of U.P. and Another