Partly allowed

Smt. Savita v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC31 May 2019A482/21984/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a non-bailable warrant filed by a lady applicant. The court refused to quash the warrant but granted a conditional stay of coercive action for 30 days if bail/surrender applications are filed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the non-bailable warrant order refused. Coercive action stayed for 30 days subject to filing bail application or surrender.

Smt. Savita Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21984 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Savita Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shams Uz Zaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the non-bailable-warrant order dated 14.5.2018 passed in Case No.11054 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No.88 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Meerut.

¶7

The contention of the 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.

¶8

All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the order impugned is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicant (who is a lady) files an application for recalling of the non-bailable-warrant issued against him within 30 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided (if possible, 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. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the 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 off.

¶12

Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Dev/-

Smt. Savita v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savita 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

Pramod Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asha Singh Vs State of U.P.

Jahid and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mritunjay Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another