The Court dismissed the application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings as prima facie an offence was made out on disputed facts. However, a stay on coercive action was granted for 30 days or until the disposal of a bail application.
Stay on coercive action for 30 days; applicant directed to seek bail within this period.
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. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19236 of 2019
Applicant :- Ashish Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Adarsh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA- Ist, for the State.
This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 30.4.2019 passed by ACJM,- III, Kanpur Nagar, in Criminal Case No. 52232 of 2018 (State v. Ashish Gupta and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 98 of 2017, under section 498A, 323, 504, IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Juhi, District- Kanpur Nagar being time barred as per Section 468 Cr.P.C.
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.
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 .
The prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings of aforesaid case as well as summoning order pending before the court concerned is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant files an application for recalling of the non-bailable warrant issued against him within 30 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of applicant 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 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 do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the above directions, present application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 14.5.2019 ssm
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for quashing of criminal proceedings filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be allowed on the stated grounds.
Whether a stay on coercive action can be granted during the pendency of bail proceedings under settled law.
Whether the discharge of antecedent papers strengthens the case for quashing the proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur v. State of PunjabReferred¶8
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. P.P. SharmaReferred¶8
State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P.Referred¶10
Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersReferred¶10
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashish Gupta
State of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
