Dismissed

Nitin Chhabra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2019A482/22388/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings regarding Section 498-A IPC and similar charges, as facts required adjudication. Applicant granted 30 days to surrender for bail consideration; coercive action barred if he appears.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash of proceedings refused. Application disposed with direction to appear and surrender for bail within 30 days to avoid coercive action.

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

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22388 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Nitin Chhabra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Balbeer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinod Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 23.02.2018, cognizance order dated 19.04.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 720 of 2018 (State Vs. Nitin Chhabra), arising out of Case Crime No. 551 of 2017, under Sections- 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Khurza Nagar, DistrictBulandshahar, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Khurza Nagar, Bulandshahar.

¶7

Vide earlier Court order dated 4.7.2018, the present matter was referred to the Mediation Centre with a view to afford opportunity to the parties, who are husband and wife, to resolve their differences, but unfortunately, according to the report of the Mediation Centre, the matter could not be agreed upon by them.

¶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. 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 applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and the applicant is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is therefore refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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 judgment 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 of.

¶12

Order Date :- 22.7.2019 SNT/

Nitin Chhabra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Chhabra 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

Ravi Mehar and 3 others Vs State of U.P. and another

Rafiq @ Babal and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saifur Rehman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Riyaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Sunita Devi and 15 Others Vs State of Up and 2 Others

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