Disposed

Suraj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2021A482/6221/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Court refused to quash charge-sheet and proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as disputed facts prevent adjudication. Pending applicant moved for time-bound bail decision. Court directed lower courts to decide bail expediently if applicant surrenders within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Direction given for bail application to be decided within specific time frame if applicant surrenders within 30 days.

Suraj Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6221 of 2021 Applicant :- Suraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Garun Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Garun Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of charge-sheet No. 349 of 2019 dated 19.12.2019, Cognizance order dated 18.1.2020 as well as further proceedings of S.S.T. No. 113 of 2020(State vs. Suraj) arising out of Case Crime No.0501 of 2019 under sections 323, 504, 342 IPC & 3(1)(Da), 3(1) (Dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station Raya, District Mathura pending in the Court of Special Juddge, SC/ST Act, Mathura.

¶6

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.

¶7

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.

¶8

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, cognizance & and charge sheet is refused.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

With the above directions, present application is disposed off.

¶12

Order Date :- 9.8.2021/P.P.

Suraj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj 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

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

Brijbhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another