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

Ramayan Yadav vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|28 November, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 78
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43350 of 2019 Applicant :- Ramayan Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding along with charge sheet dated 01.12.2018 in Criminal Case No.1123 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.169 of 2018, under Section 379 IPC and 3/5 Public Property Damage Prevention Act, 1984 and 3/57/70 Uttar Pradesh Upkhaniz (Parihar) Niyamawali, 1963 and 4/21 Khaniz Vikas Evam Viniyaman Adiniyam 1957, Police Station- Ghughali, District- Maharajganj (State Vs. Ramayan and others) pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further argued that no offence is disclosed against the applicant and present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment.
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 by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426. Disputed defence of the applicant cannot be considered at this stage.
In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.
However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the FIR and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court concerned within 45 days from today and applies for bail, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the courts below.
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 applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application u/s 482 is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Ashutosh Pandey
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

Ramayan Yadav vs State Of U P And Another

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
28 November, 2019
Judges
  • Anil Kumar Ix
Advocates
  • Sanjay Kumar Pandey