The High Court refused to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated at this stage and a prima facie case existed against the applicant.
Prayer for quash consideration refused; applicant directed to surrender within 30 days for bail consideration.
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. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21674 of 2019
Applicant :- Anurag Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Umesh Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arunesh Khare,Gautam Baghel,Parvesh Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Sageer Ahmad, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri P.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arunesh Khare, learned counsel for the contesting opposite party no.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, AGA-1st appearing for the State and also perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned charge sheet No.A-349 of 2018 dated 7.12.2018, under sections 498-A,419, 420, 376,506 IPC in Case No.417 of 2018, Police Station Shahganj, District Allahabad as well as entire proceeding of Case No.81 of 2019, pending before A.C.J.M.Court No.8, Allahabad in the aforesaid case.
Pursuant to earlier orders of this Court both the applicant and opposite party no.2 are present before this Court in person. On a query being made the applicant replied that he is ready to keep opposite party no.2 as his wife, but on the contrary the opposite party no.2 answered that she is not at all willing to live with the applicant no.1. Their signatures have been obtained in the order sheet which have been duly verified by their counsel.
The next 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 purposes of 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 applicant. 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 proceedings of the aforesaid case as well as impugned charge sheet is refused.
However, 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 on the same day 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.
However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the above directions, present application is disposed off.
Order Date :- 8.8.2019 IA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present prosecution is based on malafide intention and harasses the applicant without disclosing an offence.
Whether the prima facie case for the said offences is made out against the applicant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Anurag Mishra
State Of U.P.
Anr
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
