The single judge dismissed a request to quash proceedings but granted a 45-day stay on coercive action, directing surrender and bail application before the Special Court under established case law.
Dismissal of quashing and stay prayers; grant of 45-day stay on coercive action conditional upon surrender and bail application.
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. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 47386 of 2019
Applicant :- Geeta Devi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikarm Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 03.11.2017 as well as order dated 18.11.2019 issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicants passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi along with cognizance order dated 11.02.2019 in Case No.51 of 2018 (State Versus Satish Chandra Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime No.976 of 2017 under Sections 427, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Cantt., District-Varanasi.
At the very out-set learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that he does not want to press the principal prayers seeking quashing of the charge sheet and the entire proceedings as have been made in the application nor is inclined to press the prayer seeking stay of the proceedings. He is ready to submit to the jurisdiction of the court, seek bail and accept all the conditions which this Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants is that the hearing of the bail application may be done on the same day.
In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants, the application so far as it relates to seeking quashing of the charge sheet and the entire proceeding and so far as it relates to seeking stay of the proceeding, stands dismissed.
However, it is directed that if 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.
For a period of 45 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.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019
MN/-
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Geeta Devi And 2 Others
State of U.P.
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
