Held that no offence is made out against the applicant at the prima facie stage and quashing prayer refused. Directed that applicant be granted bail if he surrenders within 30 days and no coercive action be taken during that period.
Prayer for quashing refused. Order for 30-day bail consideration period on surrender.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27099 of 2019 Applicant :- Govind Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap,Anurag Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Anurag Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-I, for the State.
This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer seeking quashing of the order dated 05/06.04.2019 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Apecial Judge (DAA), Mainpuri in Case Crime No. 0475 of 2018 under sections 395,397,353,342,332,427,323,504 IPC and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, Police Station- Ghiror, DistrictMainpuri pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (DAA), Mainpuri.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under section 482 Cr.PC. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283 .
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.
However, it is directed, that in case applicant appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of applicant in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57)ALR 290, as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC). 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.
With the above directions, present application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 ssm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings under sections 395, 397, 353 IPC etc. should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether coercive action should be taken against the applicant if he does not appear within 30 days
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur v. State of PunjabReferred¶6
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶6
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. P.P. SharmaReferred¶6
State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶6
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283 · Who else cites this
Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P.Relied on¶8
Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersRelied on¶8
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Govind
State Of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Singh J
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
