Narayan Singh. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Narayan Singh. vs State of U.P. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Sep 08, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/911629

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/911629
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.
Decided On: Sep 08, 2010
Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27710 of 2010
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[A.H. JOSHI, J.] - Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. - Section 3 (1) (x) -- Rule. [d] After investigation, police filed the charge-sheet and the Special Case is pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Respondent no.2 has filed reply and supported whatever is plead...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 420, 468, 469, 471; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 482, 239, 245(2), 227, 228.

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Narayan Singh.

Advocate R.D.Singh, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 420, 468, 469, 471; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 482, 239, 245(2), 227, 228.

Excerpt

[a.h. joshi, j.] - scheduled castes & scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) act. - section 3 (1) (x) -- rule. [d] after investigation, police filed the charge-sheet and the special case is pending in the court of additional sessions judge, nagpur. respondent no.2 has filed reply and supported whatever is pleaded in the petition......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. 3. 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.4. 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 v. state of punjab, a.i.r. 1960 s.c. 866, state of haryana v. bhajan lal, 1992 scc (cr.) 426, state of bihar v. p.p.sharma, 1992 scc (cr.) 192 and lastly zandu pharmaceutical works ltd. v. mohd. saraful haq and another (para-10) 2005 scc (cr.) 283. the disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 5. moreover, the applicant has got right of discharge under section 239 or 245(2) or 227/228, cr.p.c. as the case may 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.6. the prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused. however, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before thecourt below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then his prayer for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law laid by the seven judges' decision of this court in the case of amrawati and another v. 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 v. 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.....

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the Staterespondent. The present 482 Petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of case no. 1644 of 2003 (State v. Jaipal Singh and others) under sections 420, 468, 469, 471 IPC pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.

2. The contention of the 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

5. Moreover, the applicant has got right of discharge under Section 239 or 245(2) or 227/228, Cr.P.C. as the case may 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.

6. The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused. However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before thecourt below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then his prayer for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law laid by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another v. 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 v. 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 of.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2010 Same Parties Narayan Singh. vs State of U.P. and ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 420, 468, 469, 471; Code o...

Criminal