Dismissed

Ram Bhool and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2019A482/36588/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court rejected quashing of criminal proceedings and summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as prima facie offence disclosed. Bench directed surrender for bail consideration within 30 days with stay on coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings and summoning order refused. Surrender for bail ordered within 30 days; no coercive action during that period.

Ram Bhool and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36588 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Bhool And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Singh Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel, has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the opp. party no. 2 is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings as well as impugned summoning order dated 24.10.2017 in Complaint Case No. 3520/9 of 2017, Sonu Vs. Ram Bhool and others, under Section 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Charthawal District Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no. 2, Muzaffar Nagar.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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.

¶9

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 applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I don't find any ground to quash the summoning order as well as entire

¶11

proceedings of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused

¶12

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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 judgment 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 19.10.2019

¶15

Gss

Ram Bhool and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bhool and 2 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

Raj Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Haseen Vs State of U.P.

Kalyan Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra @ Jeetu @ Jitendra Kumar and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Hari Babu Shakywar Vs State of U.P.