Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Keshav @ Narain Pandey And Others vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|26 February, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 17
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5724 of 2019
Applicant :- Keshav @ Narain Pandey And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shireesh Kumar Dwivedi,Anshul Kumar Singhal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.09.2017 as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 4384 of 2016, under Sections 323, 506 & 452 I.P.C., Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur.
The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants are disclosed and the prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
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 applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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 persons cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under the provisions of Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
For a period of 45 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. For a period of 45 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 them.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 Vibha Singh
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Keshav @ Narain Pandey And Others vs State Of U P And Another

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
26 February, 2019
Judges
  • Suresh Kumar Gupta
Advocates
  • Shireesh Kumar Dwivedi Anshul Kumar Singhal