Dismissed

Prashant Keshri and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2020A482/588/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the charge sheet and proceedings alleging cheating, forgery, and drug offences, holding that disputed factual issues could not be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. A direction was issued for the expeditious disposal of the bail application of an unrepresented applicant.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash charge sheet and proceedings refused. Direction issued for expeditious disposal of bail application of applicant no. 3.

Prashant Keshri and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 588 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Prashant Keshri And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Singh,Syed Imran Ibrahim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the charge sheet as well as proceedings of S.T. No. 09 of 2019 (State Vs. Prashant Keshari and others) arising out of crime no. 34 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34, 472, 473 IPC and Section 18A, 27 and 18 (c) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Police Station Aadampur, district Varanasi pending in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Varanasi. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that cognizance taken in the matter is illegal. In fact applicants were working in the godown on behalf of the owner. They have no concern with the present offence. If entire prosecution case is taken into consideration then also godown owner may be held responsible but the applicants who are simply labour cannot be prosecuted for the aforesaid offence. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no. 1 and 2 have already obtained bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer.

¶9

From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view of the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicants are not made out. 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 a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 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 made in the application is refused.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants prays that a direction may be issued to the Court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicant no. 3.

¶11

Hence it is directed that in case the applicant no. 3 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 no. 3. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicant no. 3 for surrender before the court concerned.

¶12

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 21.1.2020

¶13

Sachdeva

Prashant Keshri and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Keshri 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brahmdev Chaudhary and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Jatav and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanavvar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tinku @ Jaswant Vs State of U.P.and Another

Safeek Ahmad Vs State of U.P.and 4 Others