Dismissed

Gajendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2020A482/925/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an IPC 436 complaint. The court held it could not engage with the factual matrix of the case but granted a 30-day reprieve pending bail application.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action shall be taken against the applicant for 30 days from the date of the order if he appears and lodges a bail application.

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

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 925 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Gajendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The applicant, Gajendra, by means of this application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, with a prayer to quash the Complaint Case No. 89 of 2015 (Tejveer Vs. Gajendra) Under Section 436 of IPC Police Station Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur as well as summoning order dated 13.09.2018.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that it is a malicious prosecution under abuse of process of law. An encroachment of Gram Sabha land was made by Tejveer and others, for which a proceeding before this Court, was filed by applicant, wherein order for demolition of same and getting land vacated was passed and in compliance of the same order, police personnel did visit on spot on 18.10.2014, Tehshildar concerned was also under accompany of them. Encroachments were got vacated. Protest was raised, whereupon proceeding under Section 151 of Cr.P.C., was taken place. Subsequently, this false case got lodged, on the basis of enmity that applicant had moved before this Court and as a result of the same, this vacation of plot was there. Thereafter, this false case got registered, by way of an application moved under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., but a report from police concerned was obtained. Hence, this application with above prayer.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed.

¶9

From the very perusal of application moved under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., it is apparent that the occurrence of 18.10.2014, was not disputed, rather, it was said in it that on above date, police and revenue officers did come on spot and got the plot vacated, wherein encroachments were demolished i.e., this accusation is not for that occurrence, rather, the accusation is this that under grab of above proceeding, Gajendra did mischief by fire, wherein belonging of chhapar i.e., household were got

¶10

damaged. For this occurrence, Magistrate took cognizance and proceeded as a complaint case, wherein statements of witnesses were recorded in inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., as well as complainant's statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., and in the statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it has specifically been said that it was Gajendra, who put fire by mischief over chhapar, resulting damage of household of complainant. Hence, before Magistrate, there was prima facie existence of elements, for passing order for offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC and it was accordingly, passed.

¶11

This Court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not to embark upon factual matrix of the case. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.

¶12

However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within thirty (30) days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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.

¶13

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 applicant.

¶14

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

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, this application stands dismissed accordingly.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.1.2020 S.K.

Gajendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajendra 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

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

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

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

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