Dismissed

Paritosh Dwivedi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2020A482/16803/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of summons order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. disputing offence disclosure. Court held disputed facts preclude adjudication, refused quashing prayer, but disposed application directing lower court to decide interim bail upon surrender within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; application disposed with direction to lower court to decide interim bail upon surrender within 30 days; no coercive action for 45 days.

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

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16803 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Paritosh Dwivedi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saroj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 05.02.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in Complaint Case No.220 of 2018 (Shivanand Mishra vs. Paritoh Dwivedi and others) under Sections 323, 498A I.P.C. and 4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Jamalpur, District Mirzapur, quash the further proceeding of Complaint Case No.220 of 2018 (Shivanand Mishra vs. Paritosh Dwivedi and others) under Section 323, 498A I.P.C. and 4 of D.P.Act, Police Station Jamalpur, District Mirzapur and stay the further proceeding of the Complaint Case No.220 of 2018 (Shivanand Mishra vs. Paritosh Dwivedi an others) under Section 323, 498A I.P.C. and 4 of D.P.Act, Police Station Jamalpur, District Mirzapur.

¶7

The contention of counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

¶8

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. 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.

¶9

After arguing the case for quite some time at length and pitted against certain observations made by the Court, learned counsel for the applicants himself has given up to address the Court on merits of the case and prayed, that the purpose of his clients would suffice, if a direction may be given to the courts below to decide his bail application within specific time frame.

¶10

At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

¶11

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 prayer for quashing the charge sheet and further proceedings is refused.

¶12

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and after perusal of record, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, this application be stands disposed of with the direction that the court below would extend the benefit of interim bail (if the court concerned deems it fit according to the merit of the case) as contemplated in the law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) , after the applicants surrender within 30 days from today before the court below and if their bail applications are filed, the same shall be adjudicated and decided by the courts below with speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law, in the light of the judgment given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hussain and another Vs. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702 .

¶13

For the period of 45 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforementioned case.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 16.12.2020 mt

Paritosh Dwivedi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paritosh Dwivedi and Another 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 Bahadur (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Yogesh Vs State of Up

Ram Singh Vs State of Up and Another

Jitendra Kumar Sharma @ Pradhan (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijbala Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another