Partly allowed

Govind Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2019A482/27416/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.PC, the applicant challenged proceedings alleging cheating/forgery. The court refused to quash the case as disputed facts were involved. However, the applicant was directed to surrender within 30 days to avail bail consideration, pending which no coercive action would be taken.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Applicant directed to surrender within 30 days to avail bail consideration; no coercive action pending surrender.

Govind Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27416 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Govind Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Shukla,Abhitosh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Abhitosh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhinav Prasad learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer seeking quashing/stay of entire proceedings of Case No.644 of 2019, under section 419,420 IPC and Section 15(2)(B)/15(3) I.M.C. Act,(arising out of Crime No. 83 of 2018), Police Station- Robertsganj, DistrictSonbhadra.

¶7

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.

¶8

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 .

¶9

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

¶10

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 applicants 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.

¶11

With the above directions, present application is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 5.8.2019 ssm

Govind Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Kumar 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

Swatantra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Bela and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Prop. Sri Hakim Singh Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mustafa and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another