Dismissed

Rajeev Kumar Jain and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jun 2019A482/22823/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court refused the prayer to quash criminal proceedings but directed that the applicants be granted a 30-day stay period without coercive action if they surrender and apply for bail, considering decisions on bail and quashing applications.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action to be taken against the applicants for a period of 30 days or until they surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier.

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

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22823 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Jain And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,Avanish Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the N.B.W order dated 1.2.2019 passed by the Additional Special Judge (D.A.A.) Court No. 5, Firozabad in Complaint Case No. 103/2016 (Rizwan Husain Vs. Rajeev Jain and another) under Sections 392/506/420 IPC, P.S. Shikohabad, District Firozabad.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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 applicants 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

¶9

and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

¶10

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶11

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their 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 the applicants surrender and apply for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the appellants-applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 20.6.2019 Nadeem Ahmad

Rajeev Kumar Jain and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar Jain and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nizamuddin Vs State of U.P.

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

Akhilesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.and Another

Mohd. Sharif and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brahm Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

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