Dismissed

Prabhjeet Singh and another v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC15 May 2019A482/44621/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of a charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding a criminal case where they failed to settle within an earlier interim period. The court refused the quashment prayer but directed that bail be considered if an application is filed within 30 days and stayed coercive action temporarily.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashment refused. 30-day stay on coercive action granted. Bail application to be considered if moved within 30 days.

Prabhjeet Singh and another Vs State of U.P. and another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44621 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Prabhjeet Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Srivastava,Atul Mehra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lal Chandra Mishra,Lalchandra Misra

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By way of the instant application, the applicants have sought quashment of the charge sheet no.1 dated 19.09.2017 and entire proceeding in Case No.2417 of 2018 State Vs. Prabhjeet Singh and another, arising out of Case Crime No.0086 of 2017, under Sections 420, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of the VI-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

¶7

Contention raised on behalf of the applicants is confined to the extent that in this case, the applicants are builders and process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. is underway. Previously, on 11.12.2018, the applicants were directed to settle the dispute with opposite party no.2 within two months, however, that period of two months expired and no worthy solution has been found.

¶8

In the background of the aforesaid aspect, now meritorial aspect of the case may be considered by this Court. An unconditional undertaking / offer is made that the applicants are ready to appear and participate in the proceeding before the court below provided that some reasonable time may be given to them, for which the applicants have sought two months' time.

¶9

Per contra, strong objection has been raised by learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. in view of fact that previously the order dated 11.12.2018 was passed by this Court whereby it is stipulated that interim protection will not be extended any more, however, the same was extended without any fruitful outcome.

¶10

Upon perusal of the averments made in the accompanying affidavit and upon consideration of document annexed therewith, obviously there was no point in extending interim

¶11

protection to the applicants because the applicants are ready to settle the amount in question. No good ground is made out for quashment of the impugned charge sheet and the proceeding. Accordingly, the prayer for quashment of the impugned charge sheet and the proceeding is refused.

¶12

However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that in case the applicants appear before the court concerned within 30 days from today and move application for bail, same shall be considered and disposed of by the court concerned, expeditiously in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶13

For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶14

It is made clear that in the event no such application is moved within the time prescribed above, this order will be of no avail to the applicants.

¶15

With the above direction, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 15.5.2019 rkg

Prabhjeet Singh and another v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhjeet Singh and another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gyan Prakash and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shivam Raj Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Brij Mohan Shivhare Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kalpana Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shalini Awasthi Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Ram Babu Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.