Disposed

Satya Narayan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2019A482/46888/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the summons and criminal proceedings under the Mines and Minerals Act. However, it granted a stay on coercive action for 30 days, allowing the applicant to seek bail by surrendering within that period, with bail prayed for consideration following settled legal precedents.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash dismissed; stay on coercive action granted for 30 days or until surrender and bail prayer filed.

Satya Narayan Vs State of U.P. — Mining and Natural Resources | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46888 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Satya Narayan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 18.11.2019 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4312 of 2019 (State Vs. Satya Narayan), under Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957, P.S. Khekara, District- Baghpat, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant was found illegally transporting sand without valid permit and as such the present complaint has been filed against him.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, no offence is disclosed against the applicant and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶10

At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the 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.

¶11

The prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.

¶12

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of 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 judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

¶13

For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 18.12.2019 KU

Satya Narayan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Narayan v. State of U.P.

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

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

Mukesh and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mohd. Jamaluddin and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vedpal Vs State of U.P.

Sitaram Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Raj Kumar and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.