Dismissed

Nagesh Mittal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2019A482/31066/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge rejected the application to quash FIR and proceedings under IPC 153A and IT Act 67A under Section 482 CrPC. The Court held that prima facie offence exists and disputed facts belong to trial court. An automatic injunction on coercive action was issued pending a discharge application within one month.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash charge sheet and proceedings dismissed; automatic stay on coercive action granted if discharge application filed within one month.

Nagesh Mittal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31066 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Nagesh Mittal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Vinod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned AGA for the State and also perused the record.

¶6

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with a prayer to stay/quash the charge sheet dated 9.2.2019 along with cognizance order dated 16.4.2019 passed by J.M. Ist Saharanpur as well as proceedings of case No. 1945 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 373 of 2018 (State of U.P. v. Nagesh Mittal), under section 153A, IPC and 67A of the Information Technology (amended) Act, 2008, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Saharanpur pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Saharanpur.

¶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 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶9

Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under section 239 or 227/228 Cr.PC., as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶10

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments made in the present application, the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case pending before the court concerned is refused.

¶11

However, it is provided that in case, the applicant moves an appropriate application for discharge before the concerned court below within a period of one month from today, the same shall be considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, by the concerned court

¶12

below preferably within a period of four months, thereafter. For a period of five months from today or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶13

In case no such application is filed within a period of one month from today, as prescribed above, the present order shall stand automatically vacated.

¶14

With the above directions, the present application is finally disposed off.

¶15

Order Date :- 13.8.2019 ssm

Nagesh Mittal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagesh Mittal 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

Anurag Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Chandan Bose Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Sartaj Vs State of U.P.

Ashwani Goel and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar Rajbhar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another