A single judge quashed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the charge sheet and summoning order, finding no ground to do so. However, a 30-day suspension of coercive action was granted if the applicant surrenders for bail.
Prayer for quashing refused; coercive action suspended for 30 days if applicant appears for bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40300 of 2019
Applicant :- Danish Khan And Anr Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants Sri Prakash Tripathi, holding brief of Sri Sajay Kumar Shukla learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 9.3.2018 and summoning order dated 9.7.2018 as well as further proceeding in case no. 375 of 2018 arising out of case crime no. 100 of 2018 under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and sections 3(2) (Va) SC/ST Act, P.S. Etmadaula, District Agra.
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.
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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the charge sheet dated 9.3.2018 and summoning order dated 9.7.2018 as well as further proceeding of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
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.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.11.2019
A.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet and summoning order should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the prima facie view.
Whether the application for quashing of proceedings should be allowed in light of settled law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalFollowed¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaFollowed¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqFollowed¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Applied¶10
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Applied¶10
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Danish Khan and Anr
State of U.P.
Bachchoo Lal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
