Dismissed

Chandra Prakash Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2021A482/3446/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. court held disputed factual questions cannot be adjudicated at this stage, refused quashing prayer, but directed lower court to decide bail application expeditiously if applicant surrenders within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Quashing prayer refused; direction given to lower court to decide bail application within specific time frame if applicant surrenders within 30 days.

Chandra Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3446 of 2021 Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra,Savita Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Kumar Tewari,Sanjay Pathak

¶2

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶3

Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶4

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of summoning order dated 20.11.2020 as well as entire proceeding of Special Session Trial No. 171/2020((State vs. Chandra Prakash Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No.151 of 2020 under section 304-A, 504,506 IPC and section 3(2)Va SC/ST Act, Police Station Soraon, District Allahabad pending in the Court of Special Judge(SC/ST Act), Allahabad.

¶5

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.

¶6

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.

¶7

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.

¶8

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.

¶9

However, it is directed, that in case applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of applicant expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶10

With the above directions, present application is disposed off.

¶11

Order Date :- 6.8.2021/P.P.

Chandra Prakash Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Prakash Yadav 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

Smt. Goma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Mohammad Istyak @ Istak and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rishipal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hosiyar Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.