Disposed

Manish @ Neetu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2019A482/29066/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application to quash proceedings under Section 406 IPC, the Court refused interference as a prima facie case existed. However, it directed the lower court to expeditiously consider bail applications if surrendered within 30 days without coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashance was refused. Direction issued for expeditious bail consideration within 30 days upon surrender.

Manish @ Neetu and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29066 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Manish @ Neetu And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anwar Hussain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 63 of 2011 under Section 406 IPC, Police Station North, District - Firozabad pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad as well as order dated 16.7.2011 passed by the court concerned. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that one complaint has already been filed by the applicants against the opposite party no.2. Present complaint has been filed with malafide intention in order to pressurize the applicants. Offence under section 406 IPC is not attracted against the applicants. Essential ingredients i.e. breach of trust and entrustment of the property are not available in this matter.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer and supported the impugned order.

¶9

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants prays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicants.

¶11

Hence, it is directed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶12

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned.

¶13

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.8.2019

¶15

Manish @ Neetu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish @ Neetu and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harshit Jain and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saheed Khan and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivraj and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhirendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Khalid Ali Vs State of Up and Another