Dismissed

Nitendra Kumar Dwivedi and 6 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2019A482/43695/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. moved to quash criminal proceedings initiated as a counter-blast. Court held prima facie case made out based on FIR and charge-sheet. Quashed order refused. Applicants granted 30 days to surrender and apply for bail to avoid coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash proceedings refused. No coercive action for 30 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail.

Nitendra Kumar Dwivedi and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43695 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Nitendra Kumar Dwivedi And 6 Ors Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jay Babu Kesharwani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Jay Babu Kesharwani,, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri B.A. Khan, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings in Case No. 410 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Nitendra Dwivedi and others) arising out of Case crime No. 147 of 2017 under sections 147, 352, 323 IPC Police Station Sarai Akil, District Kaushambi as well as charge-sheet No. 277 of 2017 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the accused-applicant no. 7 had lodged an FIR on 24.2.2017 against the opposite party no. 2 as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 2 of the affidavit and thereafter showing occurrence of the same day, the present FIR has been lodged against the applicants in order to falsely implicate them and to put pressure upon the applicants. Therefore, now the said proceeding is nothing but a malicious proceeding which has been initiated only as a counter-blast which need to be quashed.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the proceedings.

¶9

I have gone through the FIR. In it, the opposite party no.2 has mentioned that the opposite party no.2/complainant's side was beaten up by the applicant and after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer after having recorded statements of as many as seven witnesses, the veracity of the said witnesses cannot be tested in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. From the evidence on record, it cannot be said that cognizable offence is not made out against the accusedapplicant.

¶10

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the

¶11

facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9 . The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶12

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶13

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid-down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶14

With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 2.12.2019 AU

Nitendra Kumar Dwivedi and 6 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitendra Kumar Dwivedi and 6 Ors. 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

Kamran Vs State of U.P.

Iftekhar Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Ramsagar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sandhya Yadav Vs State of Up and Another

Santosh Kumar Vs State of Up and 4 Others

Somlata and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another