Partly allowed

Sunil Kumar Bansal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Jun 2019CRLR/2432/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revisionist challenged an impugned order dismissing a compromise application and sought quashing under Cr.P.C. The single-judge court held that disputed questions of fact and merit could not be considered in a revision, staying coercive action only to permit bail applications.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the impugned order refused. Coercive action stayed for 30 days pending bail application.

Sunil Kumar Bansal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2432 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Bansal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

The present criminal revision has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.5.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Case No. 803 of 2007( State Versus Sunil Kumar Bansal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. C-14/2006 under sections 420,467,468,471,120-B I.P.C. P.S. Uttar district Firozabad by which application under section 239/245 has been dismissed.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that no offence against the revisionist is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statement in support of his contention.

¶8

All the submission at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in a revision filed under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab , AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma , 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused also cannot be considered at this stage. The prayer for quashing the order impugned is refused.

¶9

However, it is provided that if the revisionist files an application for recalling the non bailable warrant issued against him within 30 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the revisionist appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may 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

¶10

2004(57)ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009(3) ADJ 322((SC) 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 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 revisionist. However, in case, the revisionist does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶11

With the aforesaid directions, this revision is finally disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 21.6.2019 N.A.

Sunil Kumar Bansal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Bansal v. State of U.P. 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

Pramod and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mujahid Ahmad Alias Babloo Vs State of U.P. and Another

Puranmasi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Than Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nannu Pandey and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Dharmpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another