Disposed

Sahdev Mukherjee v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2019A482/24757/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash charge-sheet and proceedings alleging malicious False implication. Court directed trial court to decide discharge within 20 days while staying coercive action against the applicant pending that decision.

What did the court decide?

Stay of coercive action for 20 days directed; trial court ordered to decide discharge application within 20 days.

Sahdev Mukherjee Vs State of U.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24757 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sahdev Mukherjee Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vibhu Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Sri Imran Ullah, learned Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, Learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Imran Ullah, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, Sri B.A. Khan, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 03.01.2019 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 2178 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 433 of 2018 under sections 341, 504, 354(ka), 354(Da), 344 (Ga) and 120B IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Allahabad pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Prayagraj (Allahabad) and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.

¶8

It is argued by the learned counsel applicant that the opposite party no. 2 has falsely implicated the applicant, who is Mamiya Sasur of opposite party no 2. She is teaching in the institution namely Indian Girls Inter College since 2012 and she has made allegation against the applicant that she was teased by the applicant who is the Manager of the said institution for last many years and when it became excessive, she lodged FIR. The said allegation is absolutely wrong because she remained quiet for a long time. Pursuant to the FIR lodged by her, so many orders were passed by the District Inspector of Schools as well as District Magistrate restraining the entry of the accused-applicant in the premises. It was further argued that one of the co-accused namely, Smt. Neelam Bhushan was reverted from the post of Principal. The order was also passed for enquiry to be held for financial irregularities. All these orders were challenged before this Court in various writ petitions in all of them stay has been granted by this Court. The prosecution of the accused-applicant falls in the category of malicious one, which needs to be quashed.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that the High Court has stayed the orders only because there was alternative forum was available which deals with the matter of such kind of harassment i.e. internal complaints committee before which the opposite party no. 2 ought to have raised the matter. In the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. the opposite party no. 2 has fully supported the prosecution version and therefore, the pieces of evidence which have been gathered by the Investigating Officer, cannot been looked into in proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C. and they require full trial.

¶10

Whatever arguments have been raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the applicant, may be raised before the trial court and seek discharge, if so advised.

¶11

The trial court is directed to decide the discharge application within 20 days from today, if such an application is moved by the applicant. For a period of 20 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the accused applicant in the aforesaid case. However, in case the discharge application is not moved or the same is rejected on merit within the aforesaid period, the trial court shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid, this application is finally disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 9.7.2019 AU

Sahdev Mukherjee v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahdev Mukherjee 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

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

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Up and Another

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