The court dismissed the applicant's plea to quash proceedings and granted a stay on coercive action for 30 days, directing the applicant to seek bail from the lower court within that period.
Application for quashing dismissed; coercive action stayed for 30 days contingent on appearance for bail.
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. - 66 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43342 of 2019 Applicant :- Rishipal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 631 of 2019 (State Vs. Vasu @ Vasudeo and another), arising out of Case Crime no. 169 of 2018, under Sections 376, 506, 354, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Salempur, District- Bulandshahr, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.01, Bulandshahr as well as Charge-sheet dated 6.3.2019.
At the very out-set learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that he does not want to press the principal prayers seeking quashing of the charge sheet and the entire proceedings as have been made in the application nor is inclined to press the prayer seeking stay of the proceedings. He is ready to submit to the jurisdiction of the court, seek bail and accept all the conditions which this Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the hearing of the bail application may be done on the same day.
In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the application so far as it relates to seeking quashing of the charge sheet and the entire proceeding and so far as it relates to seeking stay of the proceeding, stands dismissed.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply 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.
For a period of 30 days from today, 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 observations, this application is finally disposed of .
Order Date :- 3.12.2019/ Vikas
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prayer for quashing the charge-sheet admits to quashing in view of the applicant profession.
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant for appearing in the trail court within next 30 days.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶7
2004 (57) ALR 290 Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶7
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rishipal
State of U.P.
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
