The Court dismissed a second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings as not maintainable, holding that an identical issue had been fully decided by a coordinate Bench in an earlier application. No substantive examination of merits was attempted. Quality is thin.
Application dismissed as not maintainable.
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. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42557 of 2019
Applicant :- Gaurav Gupta And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Tapesh Kumar Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State.
This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 08.11.2012, cognizance order dated 01.06.2013 as well as entire proceedings of Case no.2476/IX of 2013, State vs. Gaurav Gupta and another (arising out of Case Crime no.205 of 2012), under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura now pending before the court of IIIrd Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.
On perusal of the impugned charge sheet and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court cannot hold a parallel trial in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No such ground appears to be available to the applicants, on the basis of which the impugned charge sheet can be quashed going by the settled law in 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 Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the charge sheet is refused.
However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, their 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 Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For a period of 45 days from today or till the applicants surrender whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid directions, the application is finally disposed of. "
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
Order Date :- 6.12.2019 Sushil/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the maintainability of the second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be established after an earlier application was disposed of on merits.
Gaurav Gupta and Another
State of U.P. and Another
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
