Disposed

Kandhi Prajapati and Anr. v. State of Up and Anr.

Allahabad HC23 May 2019A482/20459/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court refused to quash the charge sheet in a Special Case involving IPC and SC/ST Act offences, as no offence was shown to be disclosed. Applicants were given a 30-day grace period to surrender and apply for bail without coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; 30-day extension granted for surrender and bail application without coercive action.

Kandhi Prajapati and Anr. Vs State of Up and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20459 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Kandhi Prajapati And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ramanuj Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no.20 of 2019 dated 11.3.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Special Case No. 35 of 2019(State Vs. Kandhi Prajapati)), arising out of Case Crime No.20 of 2019, under Sections 452, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)D, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)5Ka, 3(1)Ba(1) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Khanna, District Mahoba, pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Second, Mahoba.

¶7

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.

¶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 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 .

¶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 applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply 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 the applicants surrender and apply for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the appellants-applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 23.5.2019 Mini

Kandhi Prajapati and Anr. v. State of Up and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandhi Prajapati and Anr. v. State of Up and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shukveer Vs State of U.P.

Kamla Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ashok and Anr. Vs State of U.P.

Talib Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mithun and 2 Ors. Vs State of Up and Anr.

Asharfi Lal Prajapati and 03 Others Vs State of Up and Another