Disposed¶13

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2020A482/8038/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

482 Cr.P.C. quashing refused; disputed questions of fact; prima facie test (R.P. Kapur; Bhajan Lal; P.P. Sharma; Zandu Pharmaceutical); discharge application remedy left open; 30-day surrender and bail protection direction per Amrawati 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC); S.T. No. 388 of 2011, S. 319 Cr.P.C., P.S. Kaudhiyara, Allahabad; single judge Ajit Singh, J.; order dated 5.8.2020.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings refused; applicant given 30 days to appear/surrender and apply for bail, with bail to be considered per Amrawati and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh, and protection from coercive action for 30 days or till surrender/application for bail, whichever is earlier. ¶13

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings arising out of Session Trial No.388 of 2011 (including the order dated 19.09.2012 passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C.) against the applicant ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶6

Court's answer

The Court accepted the State's submission that the material raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in a Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceeding; at this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of Supreme Court precedent, the accused's disputed defence cannot be considered, and the applicant remains free to raise all submissions in a discharge application before the trial court.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of Session Trial No.388 of 2011 was refused.

¶10

Key takeaways

The applicant was directed to appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days and apply for bail; his bail prayer is to be considered and decided in view of the settled law in Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)).ratio¶11
No coercive action shall be taken against the applicant for 30 days or till he surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier; if he fails to appear before the court below within that period, coercive action shall be taken against him.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Section 482 Cr.P.C. — quashing of proceedings in Session Trial No.388 of 2011 (State Vs. Dwarika Prasad) under Section 319 Cr.P.C., P.S. Kaudhiyara, district Allahabad — prayer refused where submissions raised disputed questions of fact incapable of adjudication under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; only a prima facie view permissible at this stage in light of R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical; applicant free to seek discharge before the trial court — applicant directed to surrender within 30 days and apply for bail, bail to be considered per Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)); no coercive action for 30 days or till surrender, whichever is earlier; application finally disposed of.

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8038 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Faiz Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 19.09.2012 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.14, Allahabad, arising out of Session Trial No.388 of 2011 (State Vs. Dwarika Prasad), under Section 319 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kaudhiyara, district Allahabad, pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.14, Allahabad.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant 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.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that 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 applicant 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 (Para10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused can not be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right to discharge through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶9

The submission made by learned A.G.A. have force.

¶10

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

¶11

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall 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 judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action

¶12

shall be taken against applicant. However, in case, applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 5.8.2020

¶15

R./

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Afzal @ Afzaal @ Kanja Vs State of U.P.

Ram Murat Vs State of U.P.

Satendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Satendra @ Bhola Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Km.Poonam Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Narendra Vs State of U.P. and Another