Dismissed

Sultan Kushwaha and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2020A482/784/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings and a summoning order in a cheating/money laundering case, holding that disputed questions of fact must be adjudicated by the trial court. However, it granted interim protection from coercive action for 30 days if applicants surrender.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing proceedings and summoning order refused; however, applicants granted 30 days from date or until bail disposal to appear and surrender without coercive action.

Sultan Kushwaha and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 784 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sultan Kushwaha And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.

¶6

The applicants, Sultan Kushwaha, Bhanu, Smt. Nanhibai and Smt. Vimla, by means of this application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding as well as impugned summoning order, dated 5.8.2019, passed in S.S.T. No.61 of 2019 (relating to Complaint Case No. 144 of 2019) (Kamlesh vs. Ramesh and others), under Section 392 of IPC, Police Station-Banpur, District-Lalitpur, pending before he Additional District & Sessions Judge (D.A.A.), Lalitpur

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Learned counsel has pointed out towards certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application by contending that 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.

¶9

Considered the rival submissions made by the parties.

¶10

The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants call for adjudication on pure questions of fact, which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. Veracity of the statements are material evidence of fact and is not to be ascertained in this proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. of this Court because the same is within the jurisdiction of Trial Court and is a point of fact to be seen in the trial. In view of law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844, Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474, Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781, Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296, Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr.L.J. 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494, State of Bihar V. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1 , there is no ground for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

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

¶12

However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants

¶13

appear and surrender before the court below within thirty (30) days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P .

¶14

For a period of thirty (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.

¶15

However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below, within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶16

With the aforesaid directions, this application stands dismissed accordingly.

¶17

Order Date :- 9.1.2020/bgs/

Sultan Kushwaha and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sultan Kushwaha and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Arvind Kumar Srivastava and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Siyaram and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gajendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay @ Sanju and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pappu Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another