Court refused to quash summons and cognizance order in a bail application. While noting prima facie case exists, court allowed applicant 30 days to appear for bail consideration with a stay on coercive action.
Prayer for quashing refused. 30 days stay on coercive action if applicant appears and applies for bail before the court.
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. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41171 of 2019
Applicant :- Ram Parikha Pasi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Kumar,Divya Bhan Anand Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 7.9.2019 as well as the cognizance taking order dated 7.9.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur on Charge sheet No.115-A of 2019 dated 8.8.2019 registered as Criminal Case No.784 of 2019 (State Vs. Bablu Uraon) arising out of Case Crime No.32 of 2019, under Section 272 I.P.C. and Section 60 (2) of U.P. Excise Act, Police Station Jamaniya, District Ghazipur.
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 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 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.
The prayer for quashing the summoning order is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may 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 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 off.
Order Date :- 16.11.2019 Dev/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the summons and cognizance order in a case under Sections 272 IPC and Section 60 (2) of U.P. Excise Act should be quashed.
Whether the prosecution is based on malafide intention amounting to harassment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabExplained¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalExplained¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaExplained¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqExplained¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq (Para-10), 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶10
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶10
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ram Parikha Pasi
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
