Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash summons in an SC/ST Act case. Court declined to grant quash but granted 30-day protection from coercive action pending bail application upon voluntary surrender.
Quashing of summons refused. 30-day protection from coercive action granted if applicants surrender and apply 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. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20140 of 2019
Applicant :- Vijay Singh And 05 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 20.02.2019 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act/Additional Session Judge/F.T.C.-Ist, Auraiya in Special Case No.94 of 2018, Smt. Mithlesh Vs. Vijay Singh and others, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)Da, Dha SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Auraiya, District Auraiya.
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 causing 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 applicants 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 .
The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, their 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 applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants. However, in case, applicants does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.5.2019
R./
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution discloses an offence against the applicants warranting the quashing of the summons under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether bail should be granted if the applicants surrender and apply within the specified time frame.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalFollowed¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaFollowed¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherFollowed¶8
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. 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶10
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
Vijay Singh And 05 Others
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
