Dismissed

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2021A482/2174/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. holding that disputed questions of fact prevent adjudication at this stage. Applicant granted 30-day stay on coercive action if he surrenders and applies for bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing refused. Prayer for bail to be considered if applicant surrenders within 30 days. No coercive action for 30 days if applicant appears.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2174 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Udai Chandani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding including the charge sheet dated 16.10.2020 as well as cognizance order dated 6.11.2020 passed by Civil Judge (SD)/ACJM, Rampur in Case Crime No. 0267 of 2020 (State Vs Raj Kumar), under Section 2 and 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 read with Section 4 and 10 of UP Protection of Tees in Rural & hill Area Act, 1976, registered at P.S. Azim Nagar, District Rampur.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment.

¶8

From the perusal of 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 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, 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this

¶9

stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, before the court below and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶10

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as charge sheet is refused.

¶11

However, it is provided that if 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.

¶12

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. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 15.3.2021 RavindraKSingh

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar 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

Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Charan @ R.C. Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Salman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anuj Akela @ Vishawa Prakash Akela Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jahid Vs State of U.P.