Dismissed

Vikas Yadav and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2020A482/4883/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings alleging malafide prosecution, the High Court found no ground to quash. However, granting a stay on coercive action for 30 days to facilitate surrender and bail application consideration.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings refused; stay on coercive action for 30 days granted contingent on surrender and bail application.

Vikas Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4883 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vikas Yadav And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer clause of application U/s 482 Cr.P.C.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 58 of 2019 (Smt. Pooja Yadav Vs. Vikas Yadav and others) as well as impugned orders dated 12.6.2019 and 29.11.2019 passed by C.J.M. Etawah, under section 494, 494/109 IPC, P.S. Friends Colony, District Etawah pending in the court of C.J.M., Etawah.

¶8

The contention of the 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 pointed out certain documents and statements 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 applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the entire proceeding of the aforementioned case as well as impugned orders dated 12.6.2019 and 29.11.2019, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶11

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 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 30 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 17.2.2020 Masarrat

Vikas Yadav and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Yadav and 5 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

Ram Nath and Anr. Vs Smt. Bhawana

Somesh Pathak and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Darshan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Abad Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

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

Om Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another