Disposed

Sri Krishnakant Goyal v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC31 May 2019A482/22026/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the summoning order and criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC as the offence is non-bailable and an alternative remedy exists. However, it granted directions for same-day bail consideration and imposed a moratorium on coercive measures pending the filing of a discharge application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashation refused; directions given for same-day bail hearing and moratorium on coercive measures pending Section 245(2) application.

Sri Krishnakant Goyal Vs State of Up and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22026 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sri Krishnakant Goyal Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhai Kumar Singh,Awadhesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 4.9.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Ghaziabad as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2750 of 2017 (Jaisi Ram Vs. K.D.P. Emporia Infrastructure Private Limited, Rajnagar Extension, Ghaziabad and another) under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Sihani, District Ghaziabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that as per version of the complaint, applicants have not paid labour charge to opposite party No. 2 (Jaisi Ram). Accordingly, no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out.

¶8

Learned A.G.A., contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶9

Alternative remedy is available to the applicants to submit application under Section 245(2) of the Code to get themselves discharged. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

¶10

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the impugned order as well as proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶11

However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.

¶12

In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State, and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190 , it is directed that in case the applicants file their

¶13

bail application, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then their prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.

¶14

However, if applicants apply for discharge under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., within 30 days from today through counsel, the same shall be decided by the trial court on merit by a speaking order.

¶15

Till the disposal of the application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., no coercive measure shall be adopted against the applicants.

¶16

With the above directions, this application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., is disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Jaswant

Sri Krishnakant Goyal v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishnakant Goyal 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

Umashankar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nandu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hardeo and 8 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Shahadat and 02 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Brijesh Rani Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Smt Dilruba Vs State of Up and 4 Others