The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under section 482 CrPC as disputed facts require trial. However, it directed no coercive action for 30 days if the applicant applies for recall of non-bailable warrant or surrenders for bail.
Refused prayer to quash case; granted 30-day stay on coercive action if applicant seeks bail or recalls warrant.
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. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35588 of 2019 Applicant :- Sudadhu Lal Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Jagadish Prasad Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Jagadish Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned AGA for the State.
This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer seeking stay/quashing of the charge sheet No. 223/12, dated 9.11.2012 and its cognizance order dated 24.12.2012 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 3012 of 2012 (State v. Sudadhu Lal) arising out of Case Crime No. 295 of 2012, under section 3/5-A/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, and 3/11 of Animal Cruelty Act and 48, 49, 52, 54, 56 of Transportation Act, Police Station- Aurai, District- Bhadohi, pending in the court of CJM, Bhadohi at Gyanpur.
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.
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 prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant files an application for recalling of the nonbailable warrant issued against him within 30 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case the applicant appears and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of the applicant 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 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.
With the above directions, present application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.9.2019 ssm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prima facie case is made out against the applicant warranting quashing under section 482 CrPC.
Whether to grant a ₹ stay on coercive action against the applicant pending his appearance for bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur v. State of PunjabReferred¶6
AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶6
1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. P.P.SharmaReferred¶6
1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶6
2005 SCC (Cr.)283 · Who else cites this
Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P.Applied¶8
2004 (57)ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersExplained¶8
(2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sudadhu Lal
State Of Up And Anr
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
