Disposed

Munib Chandra Maurya @ Munim Kumar Maurya and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2020A482/9756/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under CrPC Sec 482 due to factual disputes. It directed that if applicants surrender and apply for bail within 30 days, the prayer for bail will be considered based on specific precedents, and the matter was disposed of with these directions.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing refused; applicants directed to surrender within 30 days to avail bail consideration.

Munib Chandra Maurya @ Munim Kumar Maurya and 2 Others… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9756 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Munib Chandra Maurya @ Munim Kumar Maurya And 2 Others

¶4

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.2124 of 2019 (State v. Munib Chandra Maurya & Ors.) under Section 323, 504, 498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act in Case Crime No.599 of 2017, P.S. Vindhyachal Distt. Mirzapur and also to quash the Chargesheet dated 23.6.2018 bearing Chargesheet No.1 of 2018.

¶8

The contention of learned 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 purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶9

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 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 (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

¶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 applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicants alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶15

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶16

Order Date :- 24.8.2020 SP/

Munib Chandra Maurya @ Munim Kumar Maurya and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munib Chandra Maurya @ Munim Kumar Maurya and 2 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Saxena Vs Ram Pal Singh Rajpoot, District Basic Education Officer

C/M Madarsa Islamia Safinatul Hedaya and Another Vs Sri Manoj Singh, Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare and Waqf

Usha Kumari Vs Sri Anil Bhushan Chaturvedi, Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority

Shiv Nath Singh @ Raja Babu and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Usha Rani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Himanchala Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another