Application for quashing criminal complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was refused as disputed facts require trial. Court granted 45-day stay on coercive actions contingent on applicants' appearance and bail surrender.
Quash order refused; 45-day stay on coercive action granted if applicants appear and apply for bail.
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. - 61 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8155 of 2005 Applicant :- Rishi Pal Chandel And Others. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the complaint dated 24.7.2002 and entire proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 5476 of 2002, under Sections 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. district Meerut, pending in the court of Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that bailable offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge according to the provisions prescribed in Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the the complaint and proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided expeditiously and preferably on the same day in view of the settled law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court. For a period of 45 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, 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 directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.4.2019
A. Pt. Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an accusation of an offence is made out at the stage to warrant quashing of the FIR.
Whether interim coercive action should be stayed against the applicants pending bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶6
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶6
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶6
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶6
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rishi Pal Chandel and Others
Suresh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
