Dismissed

Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2019A482/42481/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings. The application for quashing was rejected as the existence of an offence was not excluded at this stage. However, the applicant was directed not to face coercive action for 30 days or until surrender, and the trial court was instructed to consider bail favorably if he surrenders.

What did the court decide?

Coercive action restrained for 30 days or until surrender; trial court directed to consider bail favorably upon surrender.

Virendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42481 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Virendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Maohammd Nadeem,Ashish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Mohammad Nadeem, learned Counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 3.10.2017, cognizance order dated 24.3.2018 and entire proceeding of Case No. 585 of 2018, State Vs. Virendra and others (Case Crime No. 690 of 2017), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 379 I.P.C., Police Station Chhibramau, District Kannauj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for applicant is that no offence against 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

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer.

¶9

From the perusal of the material available on record and looking into the facts of the case, 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 the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (para-10) 2005 S.C.C. (Cr.) 283.

¶10

I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and prayer is refused.

¶11

However, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, Trial Court is expected, while considering his bail, to bear in mind, established law by Hon'ble Apex Court

¶12

and the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (7) ADJ 151.

¶13

For a period of 30 days from today or till surrender of applicant, 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.

¶14

In view thereof, application is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 25.11.2019 Manoj

Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Amit Soni Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of U.P.

Bheem Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Lakhvinder Kaur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamran Vs State of U.P.

Iftekhar Ahmad Vs State of U.P.