Partly allowed

Rinku and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2020A482/728/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the applicant sought quashing of criminal proceedings alleging malafide prosecution. The court held that a prima facie case was made out and disputed facts cannot be decided at this stage. Proceedings were not quashed but applicants were granted a 30-day reprieve from coercive action pending bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; applicants granted 30-day immunity from coercive action if they apply for bail within that period.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 728 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rinku And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of case No. 1111 of 2019 (State Vs. Rinku and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 27 of 2019, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station Jasrana, district Firozabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Firozabad.

¶7

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. Learned counsel further submits that learned trial court without applying mind passed the summoning order dated 28.3.2019. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶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. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge according to the provisions prescribed in Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and

¶11

applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the settled law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 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 :- 10.1.2020 Vibha Singh

Rinku and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku and 2 Ors. 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

Saroj @ Neetu Vs State of Up and Anr.

Subhash Singh and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Banti Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dwarika Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Adesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another