Court refused prayer to quash charge sheet and cognizance order due to lack of prima facie case for malafide intent. Granted 45-day suspension on coercive measures conditional on surrender and bail application.
No coercive measures for 45 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail.
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. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 243 of 2020
Applicant :- Vijay Pal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no.226 of 2019 dated 05.07.2019 and cognizance as well as summoning order dated 14.08.2019 passed by C.M.M. Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Case No.25047 of 2019 (State Vs. Vijay Pal & others), arising out of Case Crime No.97 of 2019, under Sections 406, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Panki, District Kanpur Nagar.
The contention of 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 purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
From a 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. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in 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 for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall 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 judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For a period of 45 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .
Order Date :- 7.1.2020 Anand Sri./-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet and cognizance order should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as no offence is disclosed and prosecution is malicious.
Whether applicants should be granted bail or granted a stay on coercive measures as a condition for disposing of the application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶8
_R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866_ · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
_State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426_ · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶8
_State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192_ · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶8
_Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283_ · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶10
2004 (57) ALR 290 _Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P._
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶10
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P._
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijay Pal and 2 Others
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
