Dismissed

Ram Ratan Kamal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2019A482/16154/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for cheating, criminal intimidation, and violation of medical and drug acts, the court held that disputed questions of fact prevent quashing and refused the prayer for quashal while granting interim protection against coercive action pending a discharge application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing criminal proceedings is refused. Interim protection from coercive action granted if discharge application is filed within two weeks.

Ram Ratan Kamal and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16154 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Ratan Kamal And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shesh Narain Mishra,Sudhanshu Pratap Singh

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anjeet Singh,P.K. Rao

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and also perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 19.01.2019, cognizance order dated 11.03.2019 and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2264 of 2019 (State vs. Ram Ratan Kamal & another) arising out of Case Crime No. 168 of 2018, under Sections 420, 504, 269 I.P.C., 15(3) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, 17 of Medicine Control Act, 1970 and 30 of United Provision Medical Act, 1917, Police Station Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat.

¶8

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

¶9

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 submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed question 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the criminal proceedings, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶11

Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under section 239 or 227/228 Cr.PC. as the case may be through proper application and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants submit that applicants may be permitted to move discharge application before the court concerned and prayed that some protection may be provided to the applicants.

¶13

Considering the request of the applicants and in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the applicants appear and move an appropriate application for discharge before the court below within two weeks from today the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of discharge application in accordance with law.

¶14

If the applicants move an application as stated above within two weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants till disposal of the said application or four months from today, whichever is earlier.

¶15

With the above observations/directions, present application is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 16.10.2019 Arti

Ram Ratan Kamal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Ratan Kamal and Another 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

Sharad Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bijendra Singh @ Vijendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Tahir Khan and 03 Others Vs State of Up and 02 Others

Sewa Ram and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Brij Karan Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raees Ahmad and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another