Partly allowed

Smt. Shanti Devi and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2019A482/25458/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash bailable warrant and criminal proceedings filed on grounds of malafide and harassment. Court held no offence disclosed; prayer refused. Granted thirty-day moratorium on coercive action pending recall application or surrender for bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; coercive action stayed for 30 days to file recall application for non-bailable warrant or surrender for bail.

Smt. Shanti Devi and 9 Others Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25458 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Shanti Devi And 9 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the bailablewarrant dated 29.05.2019 & 12.06.2019 pending in the court of Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 53221 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 459 of 2017 (State Vs. Shanti and others) under section 147, 148, 149, 427, 452, 323, 308, 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

The contention of the 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 purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the order impugned is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicants file an application for recalling of the non-bailable-warrant issued against them within 30 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may 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 disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 8.7.2019 Arti

Smt. Shanti Devi and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shanti Devi and 9 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Barkat Ali and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Laxmi Narain Mishra and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Desh Raj Vs State of U.P. Another

Mahendra Singh Yadav Advocate and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vivek Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another