Partly allowed

Harswaroop v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC21 May 2019A482/20137/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court refused to quash criminal proceedings but granted a conditional reprieve. The applicant is granted a 30-day window to appear and apply for bail without coercive action, after which bail will be considered per settled law. Failure to appear may attract coercive measures.

What did the court decide?

Refused quashal; directed conditional bail consideration if applicant appears within 30 days; no coercive action during this period.

Harswaroop Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20137 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Harswaroop Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Madhu Ranjan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 29.01.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge-II/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Pilibhit in Misc. Case No.40 of 2017, Smt. Sushila Devi Vs. Harswaroop arising out of Final Report No.04/2009, under Section 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, P.S. Neuriya, District Pilibhit.

¶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 causing 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 at this stage. 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. 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 .

¶9

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶10

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall 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 judgement 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 applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant. However, in case, applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶11

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 21.5.2019

¶13

R./

Harswaroop v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harswaroop v. State of Up 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

Sundar and Others Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Monu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Aditya Shahi @ Chunmu Shahi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Singh and 05 Others Vs State of Up and Another