Krishna Madho @ Krishna Madhav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2019A482/36258/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge sheet and cognizance order in an Essential Commodities Act case, the court refused to quash the proceedings. While noting that facts were disputed and not triable at this stage, the court allowed the applicant to surrender and apply for bail within 30 days without facing coercive action.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing is refused, but the applicant is directed to surrender and apply for bail within 30 days without facing coercive action.

Krishna Madho @ Krishna Madhav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36258 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Krishna Madho @ Krishna Madhav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the charge sheet No.01 of 2018 dated 7.2.2019 as well as the cognizance taking order dated 19.3.2019 in Case No.1209 of 2019 (State Vs. Krishna Madho and others), under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act arising out of Case Crime No.642 of 2018, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Sabir Nagar.

¶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 summoning order 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 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.

¶11

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.

¶12

Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Dev/-

Krishna Madho @ Krishna Madhav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Madho @ Krishna Madhav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Layak Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Taufiq Qureshi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Singh @ Tulsi Vs State of U.P. and Another