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

Ravi Kant Pandey @ Amit Pandey vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|26 April, 2019


Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16632 of 2019
Applicant :- Ravi Kant Pandey @ Amit Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vidya Kant Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the charge sheet submitted by police in connection with Case No. 54 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 003 of 2018 (State Vs. Kamal Kant) under sections 498A, 304B, 328 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kurawali, District Mainpuri, pending in the court of C.J.M., Mainpuri as well as cognizance order 02.01.2019 passed by CJM, Mainpuri.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present 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 applicant. All the submission 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 and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 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 is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Arti
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Ravi Kant Pandey @ Amit Pandey vs State Of U P And Another


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

26 April, 2019
  • Vivek Kumar Singh
  • Vidya Kant Rai