The Court refused to quash the FIR and proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. due to factual disputes. However, granting a 45-day suspension of coercive measures and directing consideration of bail upon surrender.
No coercive measure against the applicant for 45 days; bail to be considered if applicant applies and surrenders.
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. - 46836 of 2019
Applicant :- Arun Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the cognizance order dated 16.11.2019 as well as charge sheet no.361/19 dated 13.10.2019 filed in Case Crime No.273 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406, 120-B, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Pilkhuwa, District Hapur as well as the criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of charge sheet vide Criminal Case No.2961 of 2019 (State Vs. Ravindra Singh & others), pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant 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 applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
From a 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 applicant. 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 .
The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days from today and applies 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 45 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Anand Sri./-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition for quashing of the cognizance order and criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be allowed.
Whether coercive measures should be imposed on the applicant pending the bail application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192Referred¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283Referred¶8
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290Relied on¶10
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶10
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arun Kumar Gupta
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
