Applicant sought quashing of non-bailable warrant alleging malafide prosecution. Court refused quashing due to factual disputes but directed warrant stay and expedited bail consideration within 30 days.
Application for quash refused; non-bailable warrant stayed for 30 days; bail prayer to be expedited if applicant appears 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. - 17
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8441 of 2019
Applicant :- Anoop Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Prakash Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the non bailable warrant dated 30.01.2019 in Case No. 3318 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No. 269 of 2010, under Sections 174-A I.P.C., Police Station Hastinapur, District Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Meerut.
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.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the materials brought on record, it does not appear to be a fit case to quash the impugned order. The prayer to quash the same is hereby refused, at this stage as the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and attending facts and circumstances of the case, as have been brought on record, 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 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 Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For a period of 30 days from today, non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant, shall be kept in abeyance.
The present application stands disposed of .
Order Date :- 7.3.2019 Vibha Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash a non-bailable warrant and stay proceedings in a case involving alleged cheating and forgery.
Whether the injury-causing offence under Section 174-A IPC is non-compoundable in nature, albeit initiated with malafide intention.
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. 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.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anoop Singh
State Of U.P.
Suresh Kumar Gupta
Vibha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
