Dismissed

Anil Khari v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2019A482/27191/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the inquiry and proceedings under the Gangsters Act initiated against the applicant, holding that disputed questions of fact exist. However, the Court granted a protection from coercive action for 30 days against the applicant if they comply with conditions.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action shall be taken against the applicant for a period of 30 days if he complies with the Court's directions regarding bail or recall of warrant.

Anil Khari Vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27191 of 2019 Applicant :- Anil Khari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned AGA for the State.

¶4

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer seeking quashing of the proceedings of Special Case No. 131 of 2018 (State v. Vijay Dhama and another), Case Crime No. 31 of 2018, under section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Medical College, District -Meerut pending in the court of Special Judge (Gangsters Act) Meerut, as well as the charge sheet dated 4.11.2018 and its order of cognizance dated 19.12.2018.

¶5

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case 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.

¶6

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 .

¶7

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case as well as order of cognizance pending before the court concerned is refused.

¶8

However, it is provided that if the applicant files an application for recalling of the nonbailable warrant issued against him within 30 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies 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).

¶9

For a period of 30 days from today or till disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶10

However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶11

With the above directions, present application is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 30.7.2019 ssm

Anil Khari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Khari v. State of U.P.

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

Amit Satija Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kavita Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kishan Dev Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lokesh Vs State of Up and Another

Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chet Narain Vs State of U.P.