Dismissed

Pradeep Kumar Kardam v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2020A482/1210/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 CrPC application, the High Court declined to interfere with the impugned order rejecting a discharge application. The Court held that no illegality was made out and directed that the applicant surrender within 30 days for bail consideration, after which no coercive action would be taken.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash proceedings dismissed; applicant granted 30 days to surrender for bail consideration with a stay on coercive action.

Pradeep Kumar Kardam Vs State of U.P.and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1210 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Kardam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

The present application has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of case no. 49950 of 2014, arising out of case crime no. 76 of 2013, under Section 66/67 I.T. Act, Police Station, Hariparvat, District-Pilibhit, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.13, Agra. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7

It appears that the applicants had earlier approached this Court through application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.23677 of 2019 in which a direction was given to the applicant to file discharge application through counsel. In compliance of the said directions, concerned Magistrate heard the applicants through counsel and passed the impugned order rejecting the discharge application. Against the said order, the present application has been filed.

¶8

I have gone through the entire record including the impugned order.

¶9

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. There is no illegality or infirmity in the said order. The concerned Magistrate while passing the impugned order has considered the entire evidence available on record. Further, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the applicant before this Court may be raised before the court concerned at appropriate stage. Hence, the prayer made in the application is refused.

¶10

However, it is observed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of thirty days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶11

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicant to surrender before the court concerned.

¶12

With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 7.2.2020

¶14

safi

Pradeep Kumar Kardam v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Kardam 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Samtlesh @ Santresh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Jiniyas Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Diwakar and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ratan Singh Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Omkar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another