Partly allowed

Surendra Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2021A482/4745/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court rejected applicant's plea to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stating disputed facts cannot be adjudicated. Court directed trial court to decide bail within 30 days if applicants surrender and granted no coercive action for that period.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashings dispens off; Bail application to be decided within 30 days if applicants surrender; No coercive action for 30 days.

Surendra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4745 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Nath Bhatt Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants 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 preferred seeking quashing the entire proceedings as well as summoning order dated 4.2.2019 in Complaint Case No.3410 of 2017 under Section 420/34 IPC, P.S. Amroha Dehat, District Amroha pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Amroha.

¶7

The contention of counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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 applicants. 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 applicants himself has given up to address the Court on merits of the case and prayed, that the purpose of his clients would suffice, if a direction may be

¶11

given to the courts below to decide their bail application within specific time frame.

¶12

However, it is directed, that in case applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of applicants expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶13

For a period of 30 days from today or till disposal of bail application whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants in the aforesaid case

¶14

With the above directions, present application is disposed off.

¶15

Order Date :- 9.8.2021 S. Singh

Surendra Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Singh and 2 Others 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

Chandra Prakash Yadav 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

Abhishek Singh @ Chetan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijbhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Vs State of U.P. and Another