Disposed

Rahul v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2019A482/1599/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the court refused to quash criminal proceedings where prima facie an offence was made out. The court directed the applicant to surrender within 30 days to seek bail and ordered no coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

Refused to quash proceedings but directed applicant to surrender within 30 days to apply for bail; no coercive action for this period.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1599 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mr Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,Mr Avanish Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.3690 of 2012 (Prigments and Laide Industries Vs. Rahul and others), under Sections 406/504/506 I.P.C., P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of M.M.II^nd , Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

This court vide its order dated 24.01.2018 had referred the matter to Mediation Centre to enable the parties to reach an amicable settlement.

¶8

The Mediation Centre vide its report dated 30.03.2018 has reported that the parties could not reach to any amicable settlement and the mediation has failed.

¶9

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that on 26.02.2012 at about 4:00 P.M., the applicant had taken chemical worth Rs.35,012/- with an assurance to pay back the entire amount by the evening. However, despite request, the applicant did not pay back the said amount and on repeated insistence, the applicant abused the victim and threatened him of life.

¶10

The contention of counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present application has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, impugned order cannot be quashed.

¶12

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.P.C.

¶13

At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 , the prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.

¶14

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within thirty days from today and apply for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) .

¶15

For a period of thirty days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶16

With the aforesaid directions, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 21.11.2019

¶18

Zafar

Rahul v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Smt. Saroj Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shankar Lal Kandora and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vimla Devi and Others Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Chanda Vishwakarma and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vibha Chauhan and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another