Partly allowed

Smt. Pappi Katiyar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2019A482/35804/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court refused to quash the quashing petition and charge sheet. The court held that disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated at this stage. It granted relief allowing bail consideration or recall application within 30 days to prevent coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Applicant granted 30 days to apply for recall of warrant or appear for bail without coercive action.

Smt. Pappi Katiyar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35804 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Pappi Katiyar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Bahadur Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Raj Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the nonbailable-warrant order dated 26.05.2016 and charge sheet dated 11.12.2012 in Case No. 290/2018 (State Vs. Pappi Katiyar) arising out of Crime No. 713 of 2012, under section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police station Kotwali Kannauj, District Kannauj pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj.

¶7

The contention of the 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

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 order impugned is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicant files an application for recalling of the non-bailable-warrant issued against him within 30 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today

¶11

and applies for bail, his prayer 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 :- 26.9.2019 Arti

Smt. Pappi Katiyar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pappi Katiyar 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

Mahesh Chandra Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajmeri and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Vijendra Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shanid Vs State of Up and Another

Pramod Verma and 13 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Layak Singh Vs State of U.P.