Dismissed

Satish Kumar Gupta v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2019A482/36979/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the application to quash an FIR, charge sheet, and cognizance order under section 482 Cr.PC, finding disputed facts. However, it directed the applicant that if a bail application or recall petition is filed within 30 days, it will be considered expeditiously, and no coercive action will be taken during this period unless the applicant fails to appear.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action for 30 days contingent upon the filing of a recall or bail application; quashing prayer refused.

Satish Kumar Gupta Vs State of Up and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36979 of 2019 Applicant :- Satish Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Chaurasia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahboob Ahmad

¶2

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Om Prakash Chaurasia, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶4

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with a prayer to quash the order dated 13.5.2019 and 6.8.2019 passed by Addl. District Judge (IV) District- Ghazipur ion Case Crime No. 462 of 2016 and Criminal Case No. 112 of 2016 under section 138-B Indian Electricity Act (Amendment) 2003, Police Station- Mardah, District- Ghazipur (State v. Satish) and also to quash the charge sheet dated 7.10.2016 and also to quash the cognizance order dated 15.11.2016.

¶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 relate 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 aforesaid orders as well as for quashing the aforesaid charge sheet pending before the court concerned is refused.

¶8

However, it is provided that if the applicant files an application for recalling of the nonbailable warrant issued against him within 30 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the 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 the 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).

¶9

For a period of 30 days from today or till disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶10

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 above directions, present application is disposed off

¶12

Order Date :- 14.10.2019 ssm

Satish Kumar Gupta v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar Gupta v. State of Up 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

Rajendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Taufiq Qureshi Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Ram Naresh Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Gupta and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.