Disposed

Mangroo @ Hari Shanker Pandey and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 May 2019A482/36292/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and the SC/ST Act, holding they were not a sham. The court directed courts to decide interim bail on the same day for offences under seven years and barred coercive action for 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Quashing refused; 60-day moratorium on coercive action; direction for same-day bail consideration.

Mangroo @ Hari Shanker Pandey and 3 Others Vs State of… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36292 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Mangroo @ Hari Shanker Pandey And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhushan Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Zia Uddin Ahmad

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

List has been revised. No one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 to argue the case.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge sheet no.42/15 dated 06.06.2015 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.447/ 15, Case Crime No.68/ 15 ( State of U.P. Vs. Mangroo @ Hari Shanker and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'Act, 1989'), Police Station - Pawai, District -Azamgarh.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that from the material brought on the record, no offence is disclosed against the applicants. The present prosecution launched against the applicants is wholly mala fide as such, the present proceedings are sheer abuse of the process of the court.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made and contention thereof raised by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that material on record is sufficient for justifying initiation of entire proceedings.

¶10

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶11

All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

¶12

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings as well as the charge sheet in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶13

However, none of the aforesaid offences alleged against applicants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.

¶14

In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and another v. State of U.P. and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190 , it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail applications and also pray for interim bail, their prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day and the regular bail shall be decided thereafter by affording an opportunity of hearing to the victim or his dependent as per the mandate of Section 15A(5) of the Act, 1989.

¶15

For a period of 60 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.5.2019 Radhika

Mangroo @ Hari Shanker Pandey and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangroo @ Hari Shanker Pandey and 3 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

Suresh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mustaqeem Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Jain Vs Indrabhan Jain and 4 Others

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

Abhinav Chaturvedi @ Sonu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sita Ram Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another