Partly allowed

Surendra Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2019A482/36713/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, holding that disputed facts preclude trial court intervention. The court directed the court below to expedite the applicant's discharge application within three months and granted protection from coercive action for four months if applied for within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings refused; protection from coercive action granted pending discharge application; direction to dispose of discharge application within three months.

Surendra Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36713 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Murari Lal Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary Affidavit filed today by Sri M.L. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Murari Lal Jain, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and also perused the record.

¶7

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with a prayer to stay/quash the summoning order dated 23.12.2014, as well as entire proceeding of Special S.T. No. 21 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 11 of 2014, under section 18/27 Drug and Cosmetic Act and 419,420 IPC, pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Drug and Cosmetic Act) Agra between (State v. Surendra Kumar Gupta).

¶8

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

¶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 submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed question 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶11

Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under section 239 or 227/228 Cr.PC., as the case may be through proper application and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant may be permitted to move discharge application before the court concerned and prayed that some protection may be provided to the applicant.

¶13

Considering the request of the applicant and in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the applicant appears

¶14

and move an appropriate application for discharge before the court below within two weeks from today the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of discharge application in accordance with law.

¶15

If the applicant moves an application as stated above within two weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant till disposal of the said application or four months from today, whichever is earlier.

¶16

With the above observations/directions, present application is finally disposed off.

¶17

Order Date :- 24.10.2019 ssm

Surendra Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar Gupta 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

Sunil @ Sonu Pathak Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Kumar Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajnish Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gaya Prasad and Another Vs the State of Up and Another