Partly allowed

Amit Gupta v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2020A482/34242/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet under Sections 498A and others IPC, the single judge held that disputed questions of fact precluded quashing. The court refused the quashing prayer but directed that if the applicant surrenders within 45 days and applies for bail, the bail prayer will be considered.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. No coercive action for 45 days or until surrender and bail application.

Amit Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34242 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,A.C.Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing of the charge sheet dated 15.6.2018, case crime no. 0113 of 2018, under section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 494 I.P.C. P.S. Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the F.I.R. it is alleged that the applicant during subsistence of first marriage had solemnised marriage with O.P. No.2 on 25.10.2015 and committed unnatural offence with her and started blackmailing her and had beaten her and turned her out of her matrimonial home and tried to kill her.

¶8

The contention of counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present application has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

¶9

From the 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 applicant. 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.

¶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, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 , the prayer for quashing the summoning order is refused.

¶11

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears/surrenders before the court below within forty five days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as

¶12

well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

¶13

For a forty five days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶14

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 2.1.2020

¶16

Amit Gupta v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Gupta v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Brij Lal Shukla and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Smt. Malwati and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Sagar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rishipal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another