Dismissed

Satya Prakash v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 May 2019A482/21217/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court refused to quash the charge sheet and proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as a prima facie case exists, leaving disputed facts for trial. However, the applicant was granted protection from coercive action for 30 days provided he surrenders and applies for bail, directing the lower court to consider bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash dismissed; coercive actions stayed for 30 days if applicant surrenders and applies for bail; bail to be considered if conditions met.

Satya Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21217 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Satya Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Narayan Yadav 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 charge sheet dated 24.8.2018 and cognizance order dated 24.9.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of S.S.T. No. 2667 of 2018(State Vs. Satya Prakash), arising out of Case Crime No. 520 of 2018, under Sections 323, 324, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(R) and 3(1)(S) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sirsaganj, District Firozabad, pending in the court of Additional District Judge-II, Firozabad.

¶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 the applicant surrender sand applies for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the appellant-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 :- 28.5.2019 Mini

Satya Prakash v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Prakash v. State of U.P. 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

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

Rinku Yadav and 03 Others Vs State of Up and Another

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

Dhanraj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Kunwar Pal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another