Disposed

Chandrapal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2020A482/18254/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused the prayer for quashing the FIR and cognizance order as disputed facts needed adjudication. It disposed of the section 482 application with a direction for the lower court to decide the bail application within 30 days and granted no coercive action.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action against applicants for 30 days; direction to lower court to decide bail application with speaking order.

Chandrapal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18254 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Chandrapal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA for the State. Perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer for quashing the entire proceeding including the charge sheet dated 06.11.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 02.03.2020 in case no. 326/2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 202/2019, under Sections 323, 504, 324, 308 IPC, Police Station Barhan, District Agra (State vs. Chandrapal and others) pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Agra.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution 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 materials on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offene 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 the 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 their 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 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,

¶11

(Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, the prayer for quashing the charge sheet as well as cognizance order and the entire proceedings are 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 stands disposed of with the direction that the court below would consider the bail application of the applicants 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 application is 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 30 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. Order Date :- 17.12.2020 Monika

Chandrapal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrapal 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

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

Nusrat Jahan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another