Dismissed

Avijit Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Jan 2020A482/1724/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Micro-Financial Court rejected the applicant’s plea to quash the charge sheet and criminal proceedings, finding disputed facts unadjudicable at this stage. The court dismissed the quashing prayer but directed the lower court to dispose of the bail application expeditiously if the applicant surrenders within 30 days, staying coercive action for that period.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing is refused. Direction issued to consider bail application expeditiously upon surrender within 30 days; no coercive action for 30 days.

Avijit Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1724 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Avijit Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.C. Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the charge sheet as well as proceedings of criminal case no. 6465 of 2019 (State Vs. Avijit Singh and others) arising out of crime no. 340 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 376, 354, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Kotwali Orai, district Jalaun in respect of applicant no. 1 and and under Section 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Kotwali Orai, district Jalaun in respect of applicant no. 3 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicants had not committed any offence. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the applicants. Essential ingredients to constitute offence are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Learned counsel for the applicants pointed out certain documents and statements in support of the contention.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer.

¶9

From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view of the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicants are not made out. 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 a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 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 prayer made in the application is refused.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants prays that a direction may be issued to the Court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicants.

¶11

Hence it is directed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and applies for bail within 30 days from today the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken/given effect to against the applicants. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned.

¶12

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 14.1.2020

¶13

Sachdeva

Avijit Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avijit Singh and 2 Others 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

Jameel Ahmad Vs State of Up and Anr.

Lavkush @ Lavkush Gupta and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Chandrashekhar and 2 Ors. Vs State of Up and 2 Ors.

Smt. Kiran Tomar Vs State of Up and 4 Others

Rajnish Tyagi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajay Verma and 2 Ors. Vs State of Up and Anr.