Disposed

Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2019A482/3920/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the High Court of Uttar Pradesh rejected the application to quash the cognizance order and stay proceedings, finding no infirmity. However, the Court conditioned no coercive action for two months if the applicant surrenders and applies for bail within that period.

What did the court decide?

Application for quash and stay refused; two-month waiver granted for coercive action if applicant surrenders and applies for bail.

Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs State of U.P.and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3920 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Shakuntala Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

This case has been assigned by Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 31.1.2019.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the cognizance order dated 1.11.2012 as well as Case No. 984 of 2012 (State Vs. Asha Devi and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 354 of 2012, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 323 IPC & 3(1)X S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bharthana, District Etawah, pending in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate-I, Etawah, Kalpi, Jalaun and to stay the entire proceeding of the case.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that impugned order passed is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and without evidence.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed and submitted that the impugned order is passed after considering whole evidence on record and is just and legal.

¶10

From the perusal of record, it transpires that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance was taken against the applicant.

¶11

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. There is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶12

However, it is observed that in case the applicant surrenders and applies for bail within two months from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of two months from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶13

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicant to surrender before the court concerned.

¶14

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 1.2.2019 A. Singh

Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shakuntala Devi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nagendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Naresh Yadav and 02 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Subhash Chandra Vs State of Up and Another

Ashraf and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Goli Alias Akash and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another