SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajesh Kumar Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 January, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 75

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 44690 of 2019

Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Tripathi

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

Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing of the entire proceeding of Case No. 2715 of 2019, State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Tripathi, arising out of case crime no. 266 of 2018, under section 354 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Nagar (Mahoba), District Mahoba.

As per allegations made in the F.I.R and the statement of the victim recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. it is alleged that the applicant tried to outrage the modesty of the girl.

The contention of counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present application has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents 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 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, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view 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 prayer for quashing the entire proceeding is refused.

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears/surrenders before the court below within thirty days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

For a period of thirty days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for 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.

Order Date :- 29.1.2020

R

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2020 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