Partly allowed

Gaurav Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2019A482/28579/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings involving charges under Sections 506 IPC and POCSO Act, holding that disputed questions of fact cannot be tried at this stage and a prima facie case exists. However, a 30-day respite from coercive action was granted if the applicant surrenders and seeks bail.

What did the court decide?

Quashing prayer refused; 30-day respite from coercive action granted if applicant surrenders and applies for bail.

Gaurav Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28579 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Gaurav Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vimal Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in Case Crime No. 0242 of 2018 arising out in S.T. No. 124 of 2019, under section 504, 506 and 354 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Ahirauli Bazaar, District Kushinagar pending before learned Additional District Judge, Kushinagar.

¶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 purposes 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 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 proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicant appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their 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

¶11

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.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off. Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Arti

Gaurav Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Tiwari 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

Chhote Singh Yadav and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Nanda Singh Bisht Vs State of U.P. and Another

Laxmi Kant Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Premveer and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satya Dev Rai Vs State of U.P.

Govind Vs State of U.P. and Another