Dismissed

Hanuman Prasad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2023A482/4218/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge sheet and summoning order under the Essential Commodities Act, holding disputed facts must await trial. The court refused the quashing prayer but directed the trial court to expeditiously decide any pending bail application.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash charge sheet and summoning order refused; prayer for bail directions treated as having no force and application disposed of.

Hanuman Prasad Vs State of U.P. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4218 of 2012

¶3

Applicant :- Hanuman Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- C.P. Mishra,A.G. Hasan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶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 application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 25.06.2009 in Case Crime No. 820 of 2008, under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, P.S. Harraiya, district Basti, pending before the C.J.M., Basti as well as summoning order dated 29.10.2011 with a further prayer to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

As per the recovery memo there are three full gas cylinders and one half filled gas cylinder were recovered from the house of the applicant and there is no authority of such cylinders and he could not produce any document of the alleged cylinders.

¶8

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 mala fide intentions for the purposes of harassment.

¶9

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. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq

¶10

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.

¶11

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case and charge sheet as well as summoning order are refused.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 approach the trial court for bail, 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).

¶14

As such application has no force and is accordingly disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 4.4.2023 Krishna*

¶16

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

Hanuman Prasad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman Prasad 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

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 5 Others

Kamlendra Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Subhadra Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Mauliram and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Shiv Nandan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others