Partly allowed

Smt. Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2023A482/20271/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC, holding that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The court directed the trial court to dispose of the applicant's bail application expeditiously following Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Quash in application refused; direction given to lower court to expedite consideration and disposal of applicant's bail application.

Smt. Savitri Devi Vs State of U.P. and another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20271 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Savitri Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar,Vipin Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nitin Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1998/15 Ramratan Vs. Savitri Devi, and summoning order dated 25.4.2017 and order dated 3.5.2018 in Criminal Revision No. 182 of 2017 (Smt. Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. and another), under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Mathura, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mathura.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes 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 applicant. 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.

¶9

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 and they are 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 summoning order is refused.

¶11

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicant in view of the judgment in the case Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

¶12

In the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for deciding of the bail application. For that purpose, the cases have been divided under four categories. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines, while considering the bail application. This Court has no doubt, that as and when, the applicant approaches the trial court for bail through counsel, same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the court below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra).

¶13

In view of the aforesaid, the present application stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.2.2023 Krishna*

¶15

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savitri Devi 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

Amarnath Sharma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi @ Dimple Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hareshwar Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jain Lodhi Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

Firoz and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another