Partly allowed

Raheesh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2019A482/16531/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.PC expected a malafide prosecution for harassment. While refusing to quash the proceedings due to presence of a prima facie case and disputed facts, the Court ordered a 30-day stay on coercive action if the applicant surrenders and applies for bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed. Conditional stay on coercive action for 30 days granted if applicant surrenders and applies for bail before the lower court.

Raheesh Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16531 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Raheesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Vajpeyi,Praveen Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anurag Vajpeyi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhinav Prasad learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer seeking stay/quashing of the charge sheet dated 15.8.2016 and the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 22 of 2016, under sections 498A, 323,506, and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, DistrictGautam Budh Nagar.

¶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 proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.

¶10

However, it is directed, that in case applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of applicants 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.

¶11

With the above directions, present application is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 26.4.2019 ssm

Raheesh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raheesh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Shiv Poojan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madan Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhagwan Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arif and 9 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shrawan Kumr and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Krishna Nand Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another