Dismissed

Tejpal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2021A482/6230/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court refused to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order in a case under the Essential Commodities Act, finding that a prima facie case exists and the plea requires evidence at the appropriate stage. The court directed that if the applicant surrenders and applies for bail within 30 days, it shall be decided expeditiously with no coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed. Direction issued: if applicant surrenders and applies for bail within 30 days, same shall be decided expeditiously without coercive action.

Tejpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6230 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Tejpal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Tomar,Anand Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge sheet dated 29.08.2020 and cognizance order dated 11.01.2021 as well as the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 132 of 2020, under sections 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police StationGarhmukteshwar, District- Hapur, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶9

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The court concerned at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicant.

¶11

Hence, it is directed that in case the applicant surrender before the court below and apply for bail within 30 days from today the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken/given effect to against the applicant. It is made

¶12

clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicant for surrender before the court concerned.

¶13

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 19.3.2021 shiv

Tejpal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejpal Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukhtar Vs State of U.P.

Prabal Pratap @ Naveen Vs State of U.P.

Smt Anita Vs State of U.P.

Rustam and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sabir and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashwani Vs State of U.P.