Dismissed

Govind v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2020A482/1745/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an application to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that factual disputes must be resolved by the trial court. An interim order granted 30 days without coercive action if the applicant surrenders and applies for bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for quash proceedings dismissed; but no coercive action for 30 days if applicant surrenders and applies for bail.

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

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1745 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Govind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant Govind against State of U.P. and Smt. Bechani Devi, with prayer to quash entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 7 of 2017, Bachani Vs. Radhe and others, under Sections 147, 323, 506, 395 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, district Maharajganj, pending in court of Additional sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Maharajganj.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Learned counsel has pointed out towards certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application by contending that 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

Considered the rival submissions made by the parties.

¶10

The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant call for adjudication on pure questions of fact, which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. Veracity of the statements are material evidence of fact and is not to be ascertained in this proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. of this Court because the same is within the jurisdiction of Trial Court and is a point of fact to be seen in the trial. In view of law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844, Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474 , Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781 , Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296 , Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana

¶11

Kumar, (1990) Cr.L.J. 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494, State of Bihar V. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1 , there is no ground for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶12

The prayer for quashing summoning as well as proceeding of the aforesaid criminal case is refused. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

¶13

However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within thirty days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid 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 reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶14

For a period of thirty days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶15

However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.1.2020

¶17

Pcl

Govind v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind 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

Ajay Kumar Singh Visen and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kuber and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shanu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Girdhari Lal and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Shankar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Maxsi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another