Disposed

Rukaiya Jamil and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2018A482/12137/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants under various sections of the IPC, as factual disputes could not be adjudicated. The Court granted a period of 60 days without coercive action and directed that any pending bail applications be decided on the same day of filing.

What did the court decide?

60 days no coercive action; bail applications decided on same day of filing.

Rukaiya Jamil and 3 Others Vs State of Up… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12137 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rukaiya Jamil And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Tripathi,Rajeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings and impugned order dated 26.09.2017 in Complaint Case No. 4888 of 2013 (Mohd. Ali Khar v. Rihan Ali & Others) under Sections 323, 452 and 427 IPC, Police Station - Dacchin, District - Firozabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that from the material brought on the record, no offence is disclosed against the applicants. The present prosecution launched against the applicants is wholly mala fide and as such, the present proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in passing impugned order by the trial court.

¶10

Perused the impugned order. At this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶11

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.

¶12

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings and the impugned order of aforesaid case is refused.

¶13

However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicants are punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.

¶14

In view of order passed by this Court on 23.01.2018 in Application under Section 482 No. 43217 of 2017 (Smt.

¶15

Sakeena and others Vs. State) , it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.

¶16

For a period of 60 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶17

With the aforesaid directions, the instant application is finally disposed of .

¶18

Order Date :- 16.4.2018 I. Batabyal

Rukaiya Jamil and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukaiya Jamil and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Yadav and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ram Kishor and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vinod Goel Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rajesh Kamalia and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopi Chand Vishnoi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Shiv Kumar Solanki Vs State of U.P. and Another