Disposed¶13

Ankur Mittal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2022A482/28354/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 88), Application U/S 482 No. 28354 of 2021, Ankur Mittal v. State of U.P. and Another, decided 6.4.2022 by Mohd. Aslam, J. Quashing of charge-sheet under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act (Case Crime No. 209 of 2018, Mahila Thana, Agra), cognizance order and NBWs refused relying on Neeharika Infrastructure (2020 SCC Online SC 850); 21-day window to surrender and seek bail per Satender Kumar Antil (2021) 10 SCC 773; no coercive action meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Quashing refused; however, the applicant is given twenty-one days to surrender before the court below and move a bail application, which is to be considered and decided according to the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil, with no coercive action against him during that period. ¶13

Ankur Mittal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge-sheet dated 4.11.2019 in Case Crime No. 209 of 2018, the proceedings of Case No. 491 of 2019, the cognizance order dated 23.12.2019 and the order dated 25.10.2021 issuing non-bailable warrants against the applicant ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶6

Court's answer

On perusal of the record, the grounds alleged in the application can be decided by the trial court; therefore, keeping in view the law laid down in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the court finds no cogent reason to quash the charge-sheet, the proceedings, the cognizance order or the order issuing non-bailable warrants.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The prayer for quashing the charge-sheet, the proceedings of the aforementioned case, the cognizance order and the order issuing non-bailable warrants is refused.

¶8

Key takeaways

In case the accused-applicant surrenders before the court below and moves a bail application within twenty-one days, the court below shall consider and decide the bail application according to the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.ratio¶10
No coercive action shall be taken against the applicant for a period of twenty-one days; however, if the applicant does not appear before the court below within that period, coercive action shall be taken against him.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Section 482 Cr.P.C. — Quashing of charge-sheet dated 4.11.2019 (Case Crime No. 209 of 2018, Sections 498A/323/506 IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.-Mahila Thana, Agra), proceedings of Case No. 491 of 2019, cognizance order dated 23.12.2019 and non-bailable warrant order dated 25.10.2021 refused, since the grounds alleged can be decided by the trial court, following M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC Online SC 850. Applicant permitted twenty-one days to surrender and move bail, to be decided per Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773; no coercive action in the interim. Application disposed of.

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28354 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ankur Mittal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is moved by the applicant for quashing the Charge-sheet dated 4.11.2019 submitted in Case Crime No. 209 of 2018, under Sections-498A, 323 and 506 I. P. C. and Sections-3/4 of D. P. Act, P. S.-Mahila Thana, district-Agra and proceedings of Case No. 491 of 2019 as well as cognizance order dated 23.12.2019 and order dated 25.10.2021 issuing non-bailable warrants against the applicant.

¶7

From the perusal of record, it appears that grounds alleged in the application can be decided by the trial court, therefore, keeping in view the law laid down in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2020 SCC Online SC 850, I do not find any cogent reason to quash the charge-sheet, proceedings of the aforementioned case, cognizance order as well as the order issuing non-bailable warrants against the applicant.

¶8

Therefore, the prayer for quashing the charge-sheet, proceedings of the aforementioned case, cognizance order as well as the order issuing nonbailable warrants is, hereby, refused.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has confined his argument to the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 and prayed for disposal of the bail application of applicant.

¶10

However, it is provided that in case the accused-applicant surrenders before the court below and moves bail application within a period of twenty one days from today, the court below shall consider and decide the bail application according to the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

¶11

For a period of twenty one days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶12

However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶13

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.4.2022 HR

¶15

Digitally signed by HEMANT RANJAN Date: 2022.04.12 18:15:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ankur Mittal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankur Mittal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neha Rai Vs State of U.P.and Another

Raj Narayan Vs State of U.P.and Another

Anara Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashif Iqbal Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Ajay Pratap Vs State of U.P.and Another