Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2021A482/6589/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl. Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash criminal proceedings and charge sheet alleging malafide intention. Application dismissed as disputed facts require adjudication by trial court; limited bail period granted contingent on surrender.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings and charge sheet refused. Surrender within 30 days permitted to seek bail; no coercive action for that period if applicants comply.

Monu Talan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6589 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Monu Talan And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pandey Balkrishna 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 of the entire proceeding as well as impugned charge sheet dated 24.08.2020 in case Crime No. 0490 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 353, 186 & Section 2/3 Damages to Public Property Act- 1984 and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act- 1932, P.S. Jewar, District Gautam Buddha Nagar and also to quash cognizance order dated 24.08.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar. It has further been prayed to stay the further proceedings in case No. 0490 of 2019, which is pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar.

¶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

¶9

he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial Court.

¶10

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as charge sheet is refused.

¶11

However, it is provided that if the applicant 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 applicants do 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

¶15

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu Talan and 4 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

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