Disposed

Smt. Sumitra @ Savitri and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2019A482/43556/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J. refused the prayer to quash proceedings filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding cheating. However, granted a 45-day stay on coercive measures and directed bail consideration if applicants surrendered within that period.

What did the court decide?

Stay on coercive measures for 45 days; bail to be considered if applicants surrender.

Smt. Sumitra @ Savitri and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43556 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Sumitra @ Savitri And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Sohan Lal Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Sohan Lal Yadav, 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 3rd August, 2014, cognizance taking order dated 16th July, 2015, summoning order dated 17th April, 2018 as well as order issuing non-bailable warrant dated 23rd September, 2019 in Case Crime No. 615 of 2013, under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station-Sector-24 Noida, DistrictG.B. Nagar, pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, G.B. Nagar.

¶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 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 Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Sushil/-

Smt. Sumitra @ Savitri and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sumitra @ Savitri and Anr. 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

Hakeem Khan @ Nannhe Khan and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Anshul Anand and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Mangal and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Atendra Alias Atendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Humayu Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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