SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Banti Sharma And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 85

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 13707 of 2018

Applicant :- Banti Sharma And 5 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Vishnu Kumar

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Wahid Jamal

Hon’ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of impugned charge-sheet dated 19.07.2015 and cognizance order dated 22.08.2015 as well as entire proceeding in Case No. 2276 of 2015, arising out of case crime no.11 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Hathras, pending in the court of C.J.M., Hathras.

Moreover, all the submissions 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 the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he does not want to press other prayers made in the prayer clause and has only made a prayer for expeditious disposal of his bail application in view of law laid down 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.

Considering the prayer of the applicant, it is directed that if the applicant appears/ surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within three weeks from today, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

For a period of three weeks from today or till the applicant appears/ surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. 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 observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

Order Date :- 28.7.2021

shiv

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation