High Court held that offence is disclosed and refused to quash criminal proceedings. However, allowed applicant 45 days to surrender and apply for bail with assurance of coercion-free period.
Refused to quash proceedings. Directed applicant to surrender within 45 days; promised non-coercion if surrendered and applied for bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 42
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24635 of 2019
Applicant :- Azaz Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the Non-Bailable Warrant dated 03.5.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 4609 of 2005, arising out of N.C.R. No. 84 of 2003, under Sections- 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police StationLalganj, District- Basti, pending in the court of C.J.M., Basti.
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. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
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 .
The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
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 45 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.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .
Till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
However, in case, the applicant does not appears before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.
Order Date :- 27.6.2019 Ruchi Agrahari
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC instituted against the applicant can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. given the malafide intent alleged.
Whether the applicant is entitled to immunity from coercion if he surrenders within the stipulated period and applies for bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶10
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶10
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Azaz
State Of U.P.
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
