Disposed

Sanjay Parmar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2021A482/18635/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge quashed the prayer to quash criminal proceedings as they relate to disputed facts. However, directed expeditious hearing of bail if the applicant surrenders within 30 days and restrained coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings refused. Directs bail if applicant appears within 30 days; no coercive action during this period.

Sanjay Parmar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18635 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Parmar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit has been filed today in Court, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.7102 of 2020 (State vs. Sanjay Parmar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.166 of 2019, under Sections 272, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 60 (2) Excise Act at Police Station Sajeti, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat as well as charge sheet dated 27.06.2019 submitted by the investigating officer.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the petiionere was not arrested on spot. There is no independent eye witness to the incident. Present case has been filed with a mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment. He further contended that the entire allegations made against the applicant are false and fabricated. The applicant is innocent and he has not committed any offence.

¶9

All the submission relates to the disputed question 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 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶10

Therefore, prayer for quashing the entire proceeding and charge sheet in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶11

However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F. I. R. and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrender before the court concerned within 30 days from today

¶12

and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Cr. L. J. 755 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

For a period of 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 in the aforesaid case. However, in case, the applicant did not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, trial court will be at liberty to take coercive action against him in accordance with law.

¶14

With the above directions, this application u/s 482 is disposed of finally.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.2.2021

¶16

Ajeet

Sanjay Parmar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Parmar 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

Kapil Kumar Sharma Vs Commissioner / Chairman, Meerut Devp. Authority Meerut and Another

Chandra Shekhar Singh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Virendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Prince Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harish Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Lal Vs State of Up and Another