Partly allowed

Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2019A482/36455/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed quashing application under Section 482 Cr.PC in POCSO/IPC case. Court refused quashment due to dispute of facts but directed bail consideration within 30 days of surrender, restraining coercive action during that period.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; however, applicant directed to surrender within 30 days for bail consideration. No coercive action permitted if he appears.

Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36455 of 2019 Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA - I, for the State.

¶4

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with a prayer seeking stay/quashing of the entire criminal proceeding along with charge sheet No. 168A dated 13.8.2018 in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2019 (State v. Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma) pending before Special Judge (POCSO)/ADJIst and Sessions Judge, Deoria, arising out of Case Crime No. 278 of 2017, under section 363,366,120-B, IPC and under section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station- Rampur Karkhana, District- Deoria.

¶5

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.

¶6

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 relates 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 .

¶7

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case pending before the court concerned is refused.

¶8

However, it is directed, that in case 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 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 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.

¶9

With the above directions, present application is disposed off.

¶10

Order Date :- 17.10.2019 ssm

Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma 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

Sewa Ram and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ram Ratan Kamal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brij Karan Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Abdul Ayub Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Soni Vs Union of India