Dismissed

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2020A482/1331/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court refused quashing application under Section 482 CrPC regarding illegal transportation of stone dust. Court held disputed facts cannot be adjudicated at this stage and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash summoning order and criminal proceedings refused; applicant directed to appear for bail within 30 days to stay coercive action.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1331 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 18.11.2019 and entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4313 of 2019 (State Vs. Raj Kumar), under Section 4/21 of Minor and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat, pending in the court of C.J.M., Baghpat.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant was involved in illegal transporting of stone dust, as such, a complaint has been filed against him by the Opposite Party No.2 before the court of CJM, Baghpat.

¶8

Learned CJM, on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint, has summoned the applicant vide order dated 18.11.2019, hence this application.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, no offence is disclosed against the applicants and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶11

Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to

¶12

the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶13

The prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings is therefore refused.

¶14

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears/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 settled law laid down 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 in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

¶15

For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 10.1.2020 Nadim

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar 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

Raj Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Smt. Anita Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Manoj Kumar Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Trilok Chand Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narendra Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Santosh Yadav @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. and Another