Dismissed

Ashok Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2019A482/24751/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash the FIR, charge-sheet, or cognizance order in a criminal case involving theft/cheating as the cognizable offence was made out based on the FIR and investigation report. The applicant was granted a 30-day stay from coercive action conditional upon surrender and bail application.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed. 30-day stay on coercive actions granted conditional upon surrender and bail application.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24751 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hardev Prajapati Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Hardev Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.D. Mishra, 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 charge-sheet no. 14 of 2019 dated 06.01.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 06.02.2019 and entire proceedings of Case No. 208 of 2019 (State vs. Laxmi Narain and others) arising out of Case Crime No.1049 of 2018, under sections 41/102 Cr.P.C. and section 411, 414 IPC, Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj 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 no recovery has been made from the accused-applicant; he has been falsely implicated; charge-sheet is also against the provision of law. He has next argued that some quarrel had happened with the co-accused because of which he has taken his name. He has no criminal history.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet. He has submitted that as per FIR, the co-accused Laxmi Narain has stated that the motorcycle in question was purchased by him from the accused-applicant and the said motorcycle belonged to one Surendra Kumar Singh as per record.

¶9

As per FIR, from co-accused one motorcycle was recovered regarding which he has taken the name of the accused-applicant that he has purchased the same from him while the accused-applicant was not its owner rather the same stood in the name of Surendra Kumar Singh. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted by the police, hence statement of witnesses recorded by Investigating Officer cannot be disbelieved in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. From the evidence on record, it cannot be said that cognizance offence is not made out against the accused-applicant.

¶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

¶11

considered at this stage.

¶12

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

¶13

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-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.

¶14

With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 9.7.2019 AU

Ashok Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar 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

Mohd. Javed Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satendra Narayan Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mahfooz Alam Vs State of U.P. and another

Laxmi @ Savitri Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sahdev Mukherjee Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nausahd and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another