Partly allowed

Smt Dayawati Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2021A482/16160/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings was dismissed. Court directed that applicant must surrender within 30 days for bail consideration; coercive action barred during this period.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings refused. Direction given for surrender within 30 days for bail; no coercive action during this period.

Smt Dayawati Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16160 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt Dayawati Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nirbhay Singh 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 entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.23556 of 2018, State Vs. Dayawati Chaudhary and others, arising out of impugned charge sheet dated 19.08.2018, submitted in Case Crime No.170 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Bazar, district Saharanpur as well as impugned cognizance order dated 22.09.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur.

¶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 she 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

¶12

surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action 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 her.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 13.1.2021

¶15

R./

Smt Dayawati Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Dayawati Chaudhary 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

Krishna Murari @ Bhola Vs State of U.P.

Sripati Pandey and Others Vs State of U.P.

Raman Bhan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mangali Vs State of U.P.

Ramkewal Vs State of U.P.

Dhanveer Vs State of U.P. and Another