Application to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC was refused. Court directed that no coercive action would be taken against applicants if they surrendered and applied for bail within 45 days.
No coercive action for 45 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35328 of 2018
Applicant :- Maya Devi And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Achyuta Nand Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sharad Sharma,Vikrant Gupta
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 27.6.2018 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 181 of 2015 (Mohan Lal Vs. Maya Devi and others), under Section 328 IPC, P.S. Shahjad Nagar, District- Rampur, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (S.D.) Fast Track Court, Rampur.
As per the allegations made in the first information report, it is alleged that the applicants administered some poisonous substance to the victim and for providing medical treatment, he remained under medical treatment from 26.9.2014 to 28.9.2014.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicants and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed.
At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the 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 prayer for quashing the impugned order as well as proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of settled law laid down 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 in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
For a period of 45 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 4.12.2019 KU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the entire criminal proceedings under Section 328 IPC should be quashed to prevent harassment.
Whether the applicants are entitled to an exemption from coercive action if they surrender and apply for bail within 45 days.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶10
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶10
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶10
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶10
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶12
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶12
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Maya Devi And 5 Others
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
