Partly allowed

Dinesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2021A482/6266/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of proceedings for cheating and excise contravention. Court held disputed facts must be heard by trial court; quashing dismissed but surrender allowed within 30 days for bail consideration with stay on coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed; bail to be considered if applicant surrenders within 30 days; no coercive action during this period.

Dinesh and 2 Others 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. - 6266 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Dinesh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Dhar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This Crl. Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the criminal proceeding and charge sheet in case crime No. 514 of 2019, under Section 60(1) Excise Act and 420 of I.P.C. P.S. Fatehabad, District Agra (Case No. 255 of 2020) as well as cognizance order dated 18.03.2020, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Agra. It has further been prayed to stay the further proceedings in case No. 514 of 2019, which is pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Agra.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purpose 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 applicants. 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 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.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as

¶10

charge sheet is refused.

¶11

However, it is provided that if the applicants 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 applicants. 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, the application is finally disposed off.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.3.2021 SY

Dinesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh 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

Ramanand Vs State of U.P.

Munna Gupta@ Munna Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajat Pal @ Manish Vs State of Up

Monu Talan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another