Nitin Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

Nitin Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing refused; however, the applicant was given 30 days either to file an application for recalling the non-bailable warrant (to be considered expeditiously in accordance with law) or to appear/surrender before the court below and apply for bail (bail prayer to be decided in view of Smt. Amarawati and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh); no coercive action for 30 days or till disposal of the bail application, whichever is earlier, failing which coercive action may be taken.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in Case No. 21 of 2000 and the non-bailable warrant dated 18.2.2020 issued by the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut should be quashed/stayed under section 482 Cr.P.C., as contended by the applicant that no offence is disclosed and the prosecution is mala fide and for harassment. +1 more

Court's answer

At this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant; all submissions at the Bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated under section 482 Cr.P.C., only a prima facie view being taken in light of the Supreme Court precedents cited.

Ratio / Principle

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case as well as the non-bailable warrant order pending before the court concerned is refused.

Key takeaways

If the applicant files an application for recalling the non-bailable warrant within 30 days, it shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law; alternatively, if he appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days and applies for bail, the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer in view of Smt. Amarawati v. State of U.P. and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.ratio¶10
No coercive action shall be taken against the applicant for 30 days or till disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier; however, if the applicant does not appear before the court below within that period, coercive action shall be taken against him.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Section 482 Cr.P.C. — Quashing of non-bailable warrant — Refused. The applicant sought quashing/staying of a non-bailable warrant dated 18.2.2020 issued by the Chairman/Members, Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut under sections 323, 308 IPC in Case No. 21 of 2000 (State v. Nitin Sharma), P.S. Nauchandi, District Meerut, contending that no offence was disclosed and the prosecution was mala fide and for harassment. The Court held that on the record it could not be said that no offence was made out, the submissions relating to disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under section 482 Cr.P.C., the prima facie position being examined in light of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq. The prayer for quashing was refused. However, the applicant was permitted, within 30 days, either to seek recall of the warrant (such application to be considered and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law) or to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail, the bail prayer to be decided in view of Smt. Amarawati v. State of U.P. (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. ((2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC)). No coercive action was to be taken for 30 days or till disposal of the bail application, whichever earlier; failing appearance within that period, coercive action could follow. Application disposed of (Vivek Kumar Singh, J.).

Court No. - 77

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13483 of 2020

Applicant :- Nitin Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mehul Khare,Pragya Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-I, for the State.

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with a prayer to quash/stay the effect and operation of the Non-Bailable Warrant dated 18.2.2020 issued by the Chairman/Members, Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut under sections 323, 308 IPC, in Case No. 21 of 2000 (State v. Nitin Sharma), Police Station Nauchandi, District- Meerut, pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut.

The contention of learned 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 purpose 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 submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under section 482 Cr.PC. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283 .

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case as well as non-bailable warrant order pending before the court concerned is refused.

However, it is provided that if the applicant files an application for recalling of the non-bailable warrant issued against him within 30 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the applicant appears and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of the applicant in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57)ALR 290, as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC).

For a period of 30 days from today or till 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 above directions, present application is disposed of.

Order Date :- 16.9.2020 ssm

Digitally signed by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh Date: 2020.09.16 17:06:31 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad