# Manu Sharma & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 699
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-14
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 30080 of 2019
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manu-sharma-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47293
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
482
-
Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 498-A, 323,
504,
506, 342
&
Dowry Prohibition
Act,1961-Section 3⁄4-quashing of entire
proceedings-mediation failed-parties have
not arrived at any positive agreement-at
this stage, disputed question of fact
cannot be considered-therefore, in view of
the law laid down by the Apex Court
prayer
for
quashing
the
entire
proceedings, is refused. (Para 2 to 11)

The application is disposed of. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

8 All. Manu Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
699
Maru Ram Vs. Union of India8 and also
in State (Union of India) Vs. Ram
Sharan9, and it was held that the section
consists of three components: (i) the Code
covers matters covered by it; (ii) if a
special or local law exists covering the
same area, the said law is saved and will
prevail; (iii) if there is a special provision
to the contrary, that will override the
special or local law.

19. The U.P. Excise Act is a 'local law'
within the meaning of Section 5 of the Code
and in view thereof the general provision
contained under Section 451 of the Code with
regard to the custody and disposal of the
property pending trial or the power for
making an order for disposal of property at
the conclusion of the trial under Section 452
or the procedure whereunder the Magistrate
is authorised to make an order for disposal of
property upon its seizure by the police under
Section 457, would therefore be subject to the
powers exerciseable under Section 72 of the
Excise Act, which makes a special provision
with regard to confiscation and disposal of
the seized property.

20. It can therefore be said that the
provisions contained under sub-sections (1)
to (4) of Section 72 of the Act would have
the effect of denuding the Magistrate of his
power to pass any order under Section 457
of the Code for release of any article seized
in connection with an offence purporting to
have been committed under the Act.

21. The view taken by the courts
below in declining to entertain the
application of the applicant for release of
the vehicle during the pendency of the
confiscation proceedings under Section 72
of the Act before the Collector, thus does
not warrant interference.

22. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. accordingly stands dismissed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A699
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 30080 of 2019

Manu Sharma & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Karunesh Narayan Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Deepesh Kumar Ojha, Sri
Saurabh Yadav, Sri Ved Prakash Pandey

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
482
-
Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 498-A, 323,
504,
506, 342
&
Dowry Prohibition
Act,1961-Section 3⁄4-quashing of entire
proceedings-mediation failed-parties have
not arrived at any positive agreement-at
this stage, disputed question of fact
cannot be considered-therefore, in view of
the law laid down by the Apex Court
prayer
for
quashing
the
entire
proceedings, is refused. (Para 2 to 11)

The application is disposed of. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. R.P. Kapur Vs St. of Punj.(1960) AIR SC 866

2. St. of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal (1992) SCC
(Cri) 426

3. St. of Bih. Vs P.P Sharma (1992) SCC (Cri)
192
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd Vs Mohd.
Saraful Haq & anr. (2005) SCC(Cri) 283, para 10

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Karunesh Narayan
Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants,
learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri
Ved Prakash Pandey and Sri Deepesh
Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 and perused the record.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
has been preferred for quashing of the
entire proceedings including impugned
charge sheet dated 13.1.2019 as well as
cognizance order dated 22.4.2019 in
Criminal case No.3684 of 2019, Case
Crime No.829 of 2018 under Sections
498A, 323, 504, 506, 342 IPC and
Section 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Kotwali district
Bareilly pending in the court of CJM
Bareilly.

3. This Court vide order dated
5.8.2019 referred the matter before the
Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High
Court, Allahabad to decide the same. The
proceeding in the Mediation Centre was
initiated.

4. The Mediator has submitted its
report in Annexure E Form 5 dated
7.1.2020 before the Court and submitted
"Mediation completed. No agreement."

5.

Learned
AGA
thereafter
submitted that the mediation has failed
and the parties have not arrived at any
positive agreement, therefore, no useful
purpose would be served in keeping this
matter pending before this Court.

6. The contention of counsel for the
applicants is that no offence against the
applicants is disclosed and the present
case has been instituted with a malafide
intention for the purposes of harassment.
He
has
also
pointed
out
certain
documents in support of his contention.

7. 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
applicants. 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.

8. 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 cognizance
order, Charge Sheet and proceedings of
the aforesaid case is refused.

9. However, the applicants are
directed to appear and surrender before the
court below and apply for bail within a
period of thirty days from today, the prayer
for bail shall be considered expeditiously in
accordance with law after hearing the
Public Prosecutor.

10. In case the applicants fail to
surrender within the stipulated period, the
court below shall proceed in accordance
with law.

11. With the aforesaid observations,
this application is finally disposed of.
8 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Kuldeep Naiyar
701

12. The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or certified copy issued from the
Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

13. The concerned Court /Authority/
Official shall verify the authenticity of such
computerized copy of the order from the
official website of High Court Allahabad
and shall make a declaration of such
verification in writing.
----------
(2021)08ILR A701
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MUNISHWAR NATH
BHANDARI, A.C.J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 109 of 2021

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Kuldeep Naiyar ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Anand Kumar Ray

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Virendra Singh

A. Service Law - Recruitment - Uttar
Pradesh
Police
Constable
and
Head
Constable Service Rules, 2015: Rule 15(g)
-
The
Rule
gives
authority
to
the
Appointing Authority to ask the successful
candidates
to
appear
for
medical
examination, which is to be conducted in
Police Line of the concerned district or at
the place mentioned by the Appointing
Authority. The aforesaid rule has been ignored
by the learned Single Judge while giving
authority to the Recruitment Board for holding
the medical examination and passing order. The
judgment under challenge is not sustainable as
goes against the Rules. (Para 8)

Special appeal allowed. (E-3)

Present appeal assails the judgment and
order
dated
12.01.2021,
passed
by
learned Single Judge.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Munishwar Nath
Bhandari, A.C.J.
&
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Ray,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the appellants and Sri Virendra Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent.

2. By this appeal, a challenge is made
to the judgment dated 12th January, 2021,
whereby the writ petition preferred by the
petitioner/non-appellant was allowed.

3. It is a case where post of Police
Constables were advertised by the U.P.
Police Recruitment and Promotion Board
(for short "Recruitment Board") in the year
2015.
The
petitioner/non-appellant
appeared in the selection and remained
successful
thus,
his
name
was
recommended to the Appointing Authority.
In pursuant to it, the Appointing Authority
directed the petitioner/non-appellant to
appear before the Medical Board where he
was found unfit on account of height.
Petitioner/non-appellant
challenged
the
decision of the Medical Board by a writ
petition. The writ petition was dismissed.
However, in an intra court appeal, an order
was passed on 11th March, 2019 directing
the
respondents
to
hold
physical
examination of the petitioner/non-appellant
again. The Review Medical Board was
constituted by the Appointing Authority
where the petitioner/non-appellant was