Disposed

Sheo Kumar Tripathi Alias Rajjan Tripathi and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2019A482/42238/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the proceedings under Section 406 IPC initiated against the applicants, finding prima facie case. However, the Court directed that if applicants surrender within 30 days, their bail application will be considered and no coercive measures will be taken during this period.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Applicants directed to surrender within 30 days for bail consideration; no coercive measures permitted during this period.

Sheo Kumar Tripathi Alias Rajjan Tripathi and 5 Others Vs… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42238 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sheo Kumar Tripathi Alias Rajjan Tripathi And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 08.05.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 257 of 2017 (State Vs. Geeta Devi), arising out of Case Crime No. 47 of 2016, under Section- 406 I.P.C., Police Station- Lavedi, District- Etawah, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, II, Etawah.

¶7

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.

¶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 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 .

¶9

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

¶10

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, their 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.

¶12

For a period of 30 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 :- 26.11.2019 Priya

Sheo Kumar Tripathi Alias Rajjan Tripathi and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheo Kumar Tripathi Alias Rajjan Tripathi and 5 Others 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

Guru Sewak Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jayram Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sarwar and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Raj Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Chand and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Raksha Rawat Vs State of U.P. and Another