Disposed

Bittu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2019A482/33056/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge declined to quash criminal proceedings under sections 60 & 62 of Excise Act for malafide harassment, holding disputed facts preclude quashing. Court directed suspension of coercive action for 30 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail, otherwise coercive action will follow immediately.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings refused; coercive action stayed for 30 days contingent on surrender, bail to be decided by lower court.

Bittu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33056 of 2019 Applicant :- Bittu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Varinder Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Varinder Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned AGA for the State.

¶4

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with a prayer seeking stay/quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.45 of 2019 (Case Crime No. 164 of 2018) under sections 60 & 62 of Excise Act, Police Station Milak Khanam, District- Rampur (State v. Balvinder Singh and others) pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C. Rampur, as well as the impugned Cognizance Order dated 25.12.2018 in the Charge Sheet dated 20.12.2018.

¶5

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicants are 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.

¶6

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 applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relates 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 .

¶7

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.

¶8

However, it is directed, that in case applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of applicants in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57)ALR 290, as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC). 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶9

With the above directions, present application is disposed of.

¶10

Order Date :- 12.9.2019 ssm

Bittu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bittu and 2 Others 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

Dinanath Bind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudama Devi Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Amit Kumar Srivastava Vs State of Up and Another

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

Pradip and Anr. Vs State of Up and Another

Pawan Kori Vs State of Up and Another