Allowed

Rajendra Prasad Pandey v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2019A482/32899/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings instituted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. While rejecting the quashing plea due to disputed facts, the applicant was given 30 days to appear for bail consideration without coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings refused; applicant granted 30 days to appear for bail consideration without coercive action.

Rajendra Prasad Pandey Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32899 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Yadav,Shri Ram 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 summoning order dated 17.05.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 7th Allahabad, Charge sheet dated 21.07.2018 as well as entire proceeding in Case Crime No. 0145 of 2018, under section 3 and 5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7th, District Allahabad in Criminal Case No. 55 of 2018.

¶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

¶11

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.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off. Order Date :- 20.9.2019 Arti

Rajendra Prasad Pandey v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad Pandey v. State of Up 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

Nadeem Vs State of U.P.

Ajeet Kabadi Vs State of Up and Anr.

Pappu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Salman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Vs State of U.P.

Sanni Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another