Dismissed

Ram Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2019A482/39853/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the summoning order and criminal proceedings against the applicant for alleged violation of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957. The court directed that the applicant may apply for bail within 30 days of the order.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash order dismissed; applicant granted 30 days to surrender and apply for bail; no coercive action during this period.

Ram Raj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Mining and Natural Resources | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39853 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Raj Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 27.9.2019 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3899 of 2019 (Khan Adhikari Kaushambi Vs. Ram Raj Singh), under Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and Rule 3, 57 and 70 of U.P. Mines and Minerals (Concession) Rules, P.S. Paschim Sharira, District- Kaushambi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant is involved in illegal act of storing minerals and as such complaint has been filed for the violation of Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and Rule 3, 57 and 70 of U.P. Mines and Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of inquiry, no offence is disclosed against the applicants and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of inquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶10

At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the 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

¶11

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.

¶12

The prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of 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 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

¶14

For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 7.11.2019 KU

Ram Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Raj Singh 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

Suraj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Lal and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sayeed Uddin Faridi @ Aslam and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Inayat-Ullah and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Goyal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar Bind and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another