Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC14 Jan 2020A482/560/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Application filed to quash the charge sheet and entire proceedings. The court refused quashment due to factual disputes but directed suspension of coercive measures for 45 days and directed consideration of bail upon surrender, relying on specific apex court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; coercive measures stayed for 45 days; bail to be considered on surrender.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 560 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Munney And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 10.01.2018 and summoning order dated 09.10.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 1463 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 0281 of 2017, under Sections- 447 I.P.C., Police Station- Aliganj, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate I, Aonwla, Bareilly.

¶7

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.

¶8

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 at this stage. 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 .

¶9

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

For a period of 45 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 14.1.2020 Priya

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munney 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lavkush Sahni and 7 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Awnish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deep Prakash Vs State of Up and Another

Raju @ Raghvendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hemanat Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madhav Singh and 2 Others Vs State of Up and 3 Others