Dismissed

Lalaram v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2019A482/40305/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed to quash criminal proceedings. The court held that no offence was clearly disclosed but findings on disputed facts require adjudication by the trial court. The prayer to quash was refused, though the applicant was granted a temporary respite from coercive action for 30 days if he seeks bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings dismissed; coercion action suspended for 30 days pending bail application if applicant appears.

Lalaram Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40305 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Lalaram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 054 of 2018 (Urmila Dhobi Vs. Lalaram) under section 323, 354-A, 506 IPC and 3 (1)(X) SC/ST Act, P.S. Nigohi, District Shahjahanpur pending in the court of Additional Session Judge-II/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Shahjahanpur.

¶7

The contention of the 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 purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court 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.

¶9

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

¶10

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 the settled law laid by this Court in the case

¶11

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 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 applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 11.11.2019 Masarrat

Lalaram v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalaram 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

Mool Chandra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Faizan Vs State of U.P.

Ragib Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Sonkar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeshwar Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Danish Khan and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another