Partly allowed

Omprakash v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2021A482/13449/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application seeking quashing of summons order and proceedings under POCSO and IPC sections was dismissed as disputed facts cannot be adjudicated. Court directed expedited bail hearing if applicant surrenders within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Court directed lower courts to decide bail application expeditiously if applicant surrenders within 30 days; no coercive action during this period.

Omprakash Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13449 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Omprakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of summoning order dated 30.1.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.259 of 2020(Shyam Babu Shivhare vs. Omprakash) under section 452, 354, 504, 506 IPC and section 8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act 2012, Police Station Kharela,District Mahoba pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge(POCSO Act) Mahoba.

¶7

The contention of counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

¶8

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. 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

At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 , the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings and summoning order is refused.

¶10

After arguing the case for quite some time at length, learned counsel for the applicant himself has given up to address the Court on merits of the case and prayed, that the purpose of his client would suffice, if a direction may be given to the courts below to decide the bail application within specific time frame.

¶11

However, it is directed, that in case applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today

¶12

and applies for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of applicant expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶13

For the period of 30 days or till disposal of bail application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶14

With the above directions, present application is disposed off. Order Date :- 12.8.2021 P.P.

Omprakash v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash 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

Santosh and Another Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Mehtab Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Singh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahabuddin Ahmad @ Sameer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asgar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nurul Ain Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others