Dismissed

Akhilesh Kumar v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jun 2019A482/22785/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge refused to quash the charge sheet andcriminal proceedings under Section 120B IPC alleging malafide intention but granted temporary relief allowing applicant to surrender within 30 days for bail consideration without coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash refused; direction to surrender within 30 days for bail consideration; no coercive action during such period.

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

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22785 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Sahu 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 06.02.2019 as well as entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.10168 of 2019, under Section 120B I.P.C., P.S. Sachendi, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of A.C.M.M., Court No.VII, Kanpur Nagar arising out of Case Crime No.250 of 2018.

¶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 applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant. However, in case, 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 :- 19.6.2019

¶13

R./

Akhilesh Kumar v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Kumar 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

Ram Surat Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Bharti Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Prakash @ Prem and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nizamuddin Vs State of U.P.

M/S.Sri Ram Corporation Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav @ Prabal Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another