Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2020A482/590/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Former court rejected the application to quash a criminal charge sheet and proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that disputed factual questions could not be adjudicated at that stage, but granted a 30-day period for the applicants to surrender and apply for bail without coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash charge sheet refused; direction issued to consider bail within 30 days without coercive action.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 590 of 2020 Applicant :- Mahendra Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Singh,Syed Imran Ibrahim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶3

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

¶4

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the charge sheet as well as proceedings of criminal case no. 10942 of 2019 (State Vs. Mahendra Prasad Yadav and others) arising out of crime no. 0031 of 2019, under Sections 3, 57, 7 of U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, Section 4, 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 379 IPC, Police Station Ram Nagar, district Varanasi pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶5

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that offences levelled are not attracted against them. Cognizance taken on 3.10.2019 is illegal and without jurisdiction and passed without applying judicial mind. At no point of time applicants were indulged in excavation of the soil which will be clear from annexure no. 2 itself. It is further argued that earlier permission had already been given by the mining department for construction of road in the village and for excavation of soil. Concerned Magistrate did not take into account these facts and illegally took the cognizance on the charge sheet. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the applicants referred to the documents annexed with the application and further argued that absolutely no offence is made out against the applicants. Continuation of the present proceedings will be an abuse of process of law.

¶6

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

¶7

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.

¶8

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 applicants.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

Sachdeva

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Yadav and Another 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

Prashant Keshri and 2 Others 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