SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manendra Singh And 1 Ors vs State Of U.P. And 1 Ors on 20 August, 2019


?Court No. – 72

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 3723 of 2018

Applicant :- Manendra Singh And 1 Ors

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 1 Ors

Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav,Rajesh Yadav,Ruchi Mishra

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Swaroop (Singh),Shivakant Singh

Hon’ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for O.P. No.2.

2. The present 482 SectionCr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 8.1.2016, cognizance order dated 16.4.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 29721 of 2016 (SectionState vs. Menendra Singh Yadav and another) arising out of case crime no. 1038 of 2014, u/s 498A, 323, 506 SectionIPC, P.S. Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of 6th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate I, Kanpur Nagar.

3. Insofar as the applicant no. 1 is concerned, the contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicant no. 1 is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

4. 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 no. 1 at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions 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.

5. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.

6. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant no. 1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall 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.

7. With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of against the applicant no. 1 .

8. Insofar as the applicant no. 2 is concerned, he is the father-in-law of O.P. No.2 and it is stated by learned counsel for the applicants that he has already been released on bail and is facing the trial.

9. No interference is warranted, at this stage. The application under Section 482, SectionCr.P.C. with regard to applicant No.2, Rajendra Singh Yadav is dismissed.

Order Date :- 20.8.2019

T. Sinha



Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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