Partly allowed

Lalaram and 5 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2019A482/5086/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge rejected the applicant's plea to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., finding no infirmity in the charge sheet and cognizance order. However, the Court granted a two-month reprieve from coercive action if the applicants surrender and apply for bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings refused. Coercive action stayed for two months upon surrender and bail application.

Lalaram and 5 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5086 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Lalaram And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

This case has been assigned by Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 7.2.2019.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashutosh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 6308 of 2018 (State Vs. Lalaram and others), arising out of case crime no. 406 of 2018, under Section 147, 506, 504, 323 I.P.C., Police Station Chandausi, District Sambhal as well as the charge-sheet dated 12.8.2018 along with cognizance order dated 11.12.2018 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal and also to stay the further proceedings of Case No. 6308 of 2018 (State Vs. Lalaram and others), arising out of case crime no. 406 of 2018, under Section 147, 506, 504, 323 I.P.C., Police Station Chandausi, District Sambhal, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that impugned order passed is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and without evidence.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed and submitted that the impugned order is passed after considering whole evidence on record and is just and legal.

¶10

From the perusal of record, it transpires that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance was taken against the applicants.

¶11

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, the Court is of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. There is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶12

However, it is observed that in case the applicants surrender and apply for bail within two months from today, the same shall 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 and affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of two months from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶13

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants to surrender before the court concerned.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.2.2019 OP

Lalaram and 5 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalaram and 5 Others v. State of Up 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

Mirul Hassan and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Harikishan @ Harikrishna Vs State of U.P.

Satya Kumar Mishra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Meena Devi and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandan Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amir and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another