Single-judge court dismissed a Section 482 application to quash criminal proceedings due to disputed facts. Granted a conditional stay of coercive action for 15 days to allow surrender, citing bail precedents.
Prayer for quashing refused; no coercive action for 15 days if applicant surrenders and applies 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. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12097 of 2020
Applicant :- Smt. Susheela Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suneel Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 5.4.2019, cognizance/summoning order dated 21.5.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 1631 of 2019, Case Crime No. 407 of 2018 (State Vs. Pawan Kumar and others), under Sections 302, 201, 498-A and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Ghiror, District Mainpuri.
The contention of learned 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 purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that 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 applicants at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court 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 can not be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right to discharge through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.
The submission made by learned A.G.A. have force.
The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 15 days from today and applies for bail, their 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 Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 15 days from today or till applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants. However, in case, applicants does 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 :- 6.8.2020 A. Singh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings is maintainable given the lack of prima facie case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶8
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.Referred¶11
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶11
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
Smt. Susheela Devi and Another
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
