Single judge dismissed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash proceedings but directed the lower court to consider a bail application if the applicant surrenders within 30 days.
Application against charges dismissed; directed lower court not to take coercive action for 30 days and decide bail application if applicant surrenders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 230 of 2020
Applicant :- Rajat Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the charge sheet as well as proceedings of criminal case no. 1305 of 2019 (State Vs. Abhishek Yadav and others) arising out of crime no. 80 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 313 IPC and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Amapur, district Kasganj pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that initially charge sheet was submitted against the present applicant as well as other accused and cognizance was taken on 4.7.2019 against present applicant for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 314 IPC. Matter was further investigated by the Investigating Officer concerned taking recourse to the provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. A report was submitted to the effect that offence under Section 376 and 313 Cr.P.C. are not made out against the present applicant. It is further submitted that since in the subsequent report submitted under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. applicant was exonerated for the offence under Section 376, 313 IPC, therefore, order passed by the court below on 11.12.2019 issuing warrant against the applicant is illegal.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer.
If the submissions raised on behalf of the applicant is compared with the settled legal position as well as the fact of the present matter no illegality or perversity is found. Opinion formed by the Investigating Officer concerned taking recourse to provisions of Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. will be subject to the cognizance taken in the matter. Thus, ground taken in the application are not sufficient to allow the application. The prayer made in the application is refused.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that a direction may be issued to the Court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicant.
Hence it is directed that in case the applicant surrenders 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 applicant. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicant for surrender before the court concerned.
With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.1.2020 Sachdeva
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order of cognizance restraining the court from taking cognizance against the applicant without considering the FIR is illegal and arbitrary.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajat Yadav
State of U.P.
Om Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
