Dismissed

Dev Singh and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2019A482/25746/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the applicant's prayer to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., noting a prima facie case and issue of fact. However, the court allowed the applicants 30 days to surrender and file for bail, during which no coercive action would be taken.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings refused; 30 days granted to surrender and apply for bail; coercive action stayed during such period.

Dev Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25746 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Dev Singh And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Uttar Kumar Goswami Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 111 of 2019 (Lakshman Singh Vs. Dev Singh and others) under Sections 420, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Anoopshahr, DistrictBulandshahr. Further proceedings of the aforesaid case are also prayed to be stayed.

¶7

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that prima facie case is made out against the applicants. 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 law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Crl) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma 1992 SCC(Crl) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (para-10) 2005 SCC (Crl.) 283.

¶8

However, learned counsel for the applicants argued that the benefit of the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004(57) ALR 290 approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009(3) ADJ 322 (SC) be provided to them.

¶9

In view of above, the prayer for quashing the entire proceeding is hereby refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the Court below within a period of 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may be considered and decided, expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶11

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

¶12

aforesaid period, then interim protection given by this Court will stand discharged and the law will take its own course.

¶13

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned.

¶14

With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of. Order Date :- 5.7.2019 Fhd.

Dev Singh and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dev Singh and 2 Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Morshree @ Kusum Devi Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Shaharyar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilshad Vs State of U.P.and Another