Disposed

Neetu and 6 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2019A482/41867/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court refused the prayer for quashing on grounds of factual disputes. The Court directed that applicants appear and surrender within 45 days for bail consideration without coercive measures during this period.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; bail to be considered if applicants surrender within 45 days; no coercive measures for 45 days.

Neetu and 6 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41867 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Neetu And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bashishth Narayan Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Kumar Patel

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants today in the Court, is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet no. 01 of 2018, dated 12.06.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 2486/9 of 2018 (State vs. Neetu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 146 of 2018, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 448 IPC, Police Station-Jhinjhana, District-Shamli, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Kairana, Shamli.

¶8

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 purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶9

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 at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions 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 .

¶10

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶11

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 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 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.

¶12

For a period of 45 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 12.12.2019 JK Yadav

Neetu and 6 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neetu and 6 Others v. State of Up 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

Umesh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mayank Sharma and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Lal Bihari Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Irfan and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Devendra Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

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