Dismissed

Sanjay@ Ram Prasad v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2019A482/24737/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected an application to quash criminal proceedings arising from an FIR alleging cheating and threatening to kill, holding that disputes of fact regarding alleged false implications could not be adjudicated at this stage as a prima facie case existed. However, a stay on coercive action was granted pending the accused's surrender for bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of proceedings refused; bail to be reconsidered if accused surrenders within 30 days; coercive action stayed until disposal or surrender.

Sanjay@ Ram Prasad Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24737 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay@ Ram Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the Case No. 2602 of 2019 (State vs. Sanjay @ Ram Prasad) as well as charge-sheet no. 1 of 2019 dated 04.03.2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 0055 of 2019 under sections 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that false allegation has been levelled against the applicant that he has taken gas cylinder from the gas agency owned by Umesh Agrahari. He has been falsely implicated because the said agency owner had taken his name that he had taken away the said cylinder which is being claimed by the informant/ opposite party no. 2. Charge-sheet has been wrongly submitted in this case which needs to be quashed.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the proceedings.

¶9

I have perused the FIR. As per FIR, the informant/opposite party no. 2 has stated to have paid Rs.7000/- to the accused-applicant for providing gas connection to the opposite party no. 2, which in spite of being given to her, was got installed in his own house by the accused applicant. When the said amount was being demanded back, she was abused and threatened to kill. Charge-sheet has been submitted after investigation. The statement of the witness cannot be disbelieved in proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9 . The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶11

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶12

However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid-down 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.

¶13

With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.

¶14

The accused-applicant, if so advice, may move discharge application before the trial court within the said period.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.7.2019 AU

Sanjay@ Ram Prasad v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay@ Ram Prasad 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

Zubaid (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Najakat and 8 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Sharuf Khan Vs State of U.P.

Vimal Kumar Vs State of U.P.and Another

Jagdish and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.