Dismissed

Mahendra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2019A482/27516/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court refused to quash a non-bailable warrant in a case concerning Section 138-B of the Indian Electricity Act. The court held that disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated at this stage, as a prima facie case must be examined based on established precedents.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; directions issued for filing bail application within 30 days to stay coercive action.

Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27516 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mahendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Omar Zamin,Brahma Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Awadhesh Kumar Saxena

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the nonbailable-warrant order dated 10.05.2019 in Case No.3680/9 of 2018 ( State Vs. Mahendra) arising out of Case Crime No. 458 of 2016, under section 138-B of Indian Electricity Act, (Amended), 2003, Police Station Shahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar, as well as impugned charge sheet dated 28.10.2016 pending before Special Judge (E.C. Act), Muzaffar Nagar.

¶7

The contention of the 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 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 applicant files an application for recalling of the non-bailable-warrant issued against him 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 applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his 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 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 aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.

¶12

Order Date :- 30.7.2019/PKC

Mahendra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Anil Khari Vs State of U.P.

Chet Narain Vs State of U.P.