RavindrA. Vs.State of U.P. and ors.

RavindrA. vs State of U.P. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Sep 09, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/911976

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/911976
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.
Decided On: Sep 09, 2010
Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27781 of 2010.
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

[MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI.G.RAMESH,J.] These writ petitions are filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to quash the revisional order passed by commissioner of commercial taxes under section 8-d of ket act, 1958 dated 5.8.2010 vide annexure-d, amd the order of even number dated 22.9.2010 pa...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 482, 239, 245(2), 227, 228; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 406.

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

RavindrA.

Advocate P.C. Joshi, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 482, 239, 245(2), 227, 228; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 406.
Cases Referred: Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Excerpt

[mr. justice huluvadi.g.ramesh,j.] these writ petitions are filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to quash the revisional order passed by commissioner of commercial taxes under section 8-d of ket act, 1958 dated 5.8.2010 vide annexure-d, amd the order of even number dated 22.9.2010 passed under section 6-c of the said act in the rectification application filed by the petitioner vide annexure-e as the orders passed without jurisdiction under section 8-d of ket act, 1958 ultra vires definition of admission' in section 2(a) of ket act, 1958 and as opposed to principles of harmonious construction......that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. he pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions. 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 questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this court under section 482, cr.p.c. 3. at this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the supreme court in cases of r.p. kapur v. state of punjab, air 1960 sc 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. 4. case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court. the prayer for quashing the summoning order is refused. 5. period of 30 days from today and applies for bail, then his prayer for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law laid down by the seven judges' decision of this court in the case of amarawati and another v. state of u.p., reported in 2004(57) alr-290 and in the recent decision of the supreme court in the case of lal kamlendra pratap singh v. state of u.p., reported in 2009 (4) scc 437, after hearing the public prosecutor.6. 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 disposed off.

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. By the present application under Section 482,Cr.P.C. the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer that the summoning order dated 9.2.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Gautam Budh Nagar in criminal case no. 9140 of 2008 under Sections 406 IPC be quashed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there are contradictions in the averments made in the first information report and in the statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer.

2. It is also contended that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions. 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 questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

3. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 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.

4. case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial Court. The prayer for quashing the summoning order is refused.

5. period of 30 days from today and applies for bail, then his prayer for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., reported in 2004(57) ALR-290 and in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (4) SCC 437, after hearing the Public Prosecutor.

6. 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 disposed off.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2010 Same Parties RavindrA. vs State of U.P. and ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 482, 239, 245(2)...

Criminal