High Courts

Arjun Singh vs State of U.P.and another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 13 December 2010 · Citation: (2010) 12 AHC CK 0131

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajesh Dayal Khare, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 · Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — Section 3, 4
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Application No. 38759 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 422 words

Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent.

The present 482 Petition has been filed for quashing of the cognizance taken order dated 13.05.2009 in Case No. 904/IX/2009 (State Vs. Arjun Singh) under section 3/4 Essential Commodities Act pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate1, Muzaffarnagar.

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 mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

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. 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 (Para10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 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 he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

The prayer for quashing the cognizance taken order is refused.

However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court 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 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., after hearing the Public Prosecutor. 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.