Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings and non-bailable warrant. Court held disputed facts require trial; prayer refused but 30-day reprieve granted for bail consideration upon surrender.
Quashing of proceedings refused. No coercive action for 30 days or till bail disposal if applicant 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. - 8445 of 2019
Applicant :- Tanveer Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rizwan Ullah Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the non bailable warrant dated 31.05.2018 and entire criminal proceedings in S.T. No. 2929 of 2018 (State Vs. Tanveer) of Case Crime No. 1824 of 2007, under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act, Police Station-Shamli, District Muzaffar Nagar (Shamli), pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kairana, District Shamli and charge sheet dated 27.12.2007, Police Station Shamli, District Muzaffar Nagar (Shamli) in 1824 of 2007, under Section 2/3 of Gangster Act, Police Station Shamli, District Muzaffar Nagar (Shamli).
The contention of the 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 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 no offence is made out against the applicant. 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 applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 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 proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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 judgment 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 30 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 applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.3.2019 Vibha Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under the Gangster Act should be quashed as no offence is disclosed.
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail consideration upon surrender within 30 days.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶7
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶7
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶7
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶7
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶10
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶10
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Tanveer
Suresh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
