Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2020A482/949/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings alleging assault and theft. However, in the interest of justice, the court directed a 30-day window for surrender and bail application, prohibiting coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; coercive action stayed for 30 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail.

Pappu Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 949 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Pappu Yadav And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jaysingh Yadav 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, Pappu Yadav, Raja Yadav, Shiv Kumar, Devi Singh and Mukesh Yadav, by means of this application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, with a prayer for setting-aside the entire criminal proceeding of in Special Session Trial No. 72 of 2019, arising out of Complaint Case No. 57 of 2019 (Bhupendra Singh Vs. Pappu Yadav and Others) pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (DAA) Lalitpur, under Section 395, 397 of IPC Police Station Balabehat, District Lalitpur as well as summoning order datd 16.11.2019.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicants argued that that it was a abuse process of law, wherein impugned order has been passed. Hence, this application with further prayer for direction for disposal of application, as per law.

¶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

From the very perusal of impugned order, it is apparent that complaint was filed by Bhupendra Singh, before court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (DAA) Lalitpur, with this contention that on 20.03.2019 while complainant was on his way to his home from Gallamandi, by a tractor at about 9:00 p.m., on his way to village tilla by walk, Pappu Yadav, Raja Yadav, Shiv Kumar, Devi Singh and Mukesh Yadav, did intersected they did abuse. It was protested, they all assaulted complainant and thereby they stanched Rs. 90,000/- , from his pocket. This occurrence was witnessed by Deepak, and many others, who intervened and identify those accused persons, who ran from the spot while extending threat of dear consequences. Matter was reported on dial 100, instantly, wherein statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., were fully

¶10

intact. Accordingly, there is no ground for allowing this proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶11

Accordingly, dismissed .

¶12

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

¶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 applicants.

¶14

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

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, this application stands dismissed accordingly.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.1.2020 S.K.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu Yadav and 4 Others 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

Gajendra 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.