Disposed

Rinku Yadav and 03 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC27 May 2019A482/20978/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the summons and criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants, holding that disputed questions of fact precluded adjudication under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, granting directions for bail consideration and protection from coercive action for 30 days upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; prayer for bail to be considered and coercive action stayed if applicants surrender and apply for bail within 30 days.

Rinku Yadav and 03 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20978 of 2019 Applicant :- Rinku Yadav And 03 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶3

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

¶4

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 8.1.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 45 of 2018(Raj Bahadur Vs. Rinku Yadav and others), under Sections 147, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (X) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kallan, District Shahjahanpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sahajahanpur.

¶5

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.

¶6

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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge under Sections 227, 239, 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.

¶7

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

¶8

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.

¶9

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

¶10

Order Date :- 27.5.2019 Mini

Rinku Yadav and 03 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku Yadav and 03 Others 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

Sonu Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Jagrani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sabir Langda Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kallu Pal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Satyendra @ Golu Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Roopak Rai Vs State of U.P.