Dismissed

Sunil @ Sunil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 May 2022A482/18306/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the charge sheet and criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as no offence was clearly made out beyond disputes requiring trial. However, the applicant was directed to surrender and seek bail expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Relief for quashing proceedings refused; surrender to concerned court ordered within four weeks; bail application to be disposed of expeditiously.

Sunil @ Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18306 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sunil @ Sunil Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the charge sheet dated 29.08.2020, summoning order dated 28.06.2021 as well as entire criminal proceedings in Case No.2024 of 2021 (State vs. Sunil Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.146 of 2020, under Sections 3/2/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act, 1984, P.S. Devgaon, District Azamgarh, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Azamgarh.

¶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.

¶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 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. 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, and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.

¶9

In view of the above, the relief as sought by the applicant in the instant application is refused.

¶10

However, considering the aforesaid alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned court below within four weeks from today and in case applies for bail, the bail application of the applicant shall be disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law and keeping in view

¶11

the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922 .

¶12

With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 16.5.2022 SKD

¶14

Digitally signed by SURJIT KUMAR DEY Date: 2022.05.16 16:23:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunil @ Sunil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil @ Sunil Kumar Yadav 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

Ramveer Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmdev Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu @ Devkinandan Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tariq @ Babli and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gajendra and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Singh Vs Union of India and Another