Court refused applicant's application to quash criminal proceedings for harassment. Court directed no coercive action if applicant appears and seeks bail within 30 days, advising trial for discharge instead.
Application for quashing refused; no coercive action for 30 days if applicant appears and applies for bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 17
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16846 of 2005
Applicant :- Ram Bilas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- S.N. Singh,R.P. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of criminal complaint case no.675 of 2005, u/s 352, 504, 506 IPC, P.S-Soharatgarh, district Siddharth Nagar, pending in the court of J.M., Siddharth Nagar.
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 purposes of harassment.
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 relate to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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 judgment 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 applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.3.2019 m.a.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings under sections 352, 504, 506 IPC should be quashed at the instance of the applicant.
Whether the dispute of fact prevents the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the applicant is entitled to protection from coercive action during the bail application period.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶7
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶7
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶7
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶7
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
5 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Bilas
State Of U.P.
Suresh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
