Dismissed

Tabassum and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC3 May 2018A482/13190/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., finding no ground as disputes of facts were yet to be adjudicated. The Court directed the applicants to surrender within 45 days to get bail considered and barred coercive action during that period.

What did the court decide?

Refusal to quash proceedings; direction to surrender within 45 days for bail consideration; stay of coercive action.

Tabassum and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13190 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Tabassum And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no. 1403/9 of 2018 (State Vs. Abbas and others), arising out of case crime no. 409 of 2017, under sections 147, 452, 352, 323, 354-B, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Shahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar including the charge-sheet dated 06.10.2017 and order of cognizance dated 13.3.2018.

¶7

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

¶8

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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the proceedings of criminal case including that of chargesheet submitted in the aforesaid case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 45 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 3.5.2018 Prajapati

Tabassum and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tabassum and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Rakesh Singh @ Akhalesh Chandra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sushil Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ekhlakh Aahmad and another Vs State of U.P. and another

Sunny Chuba Okolo and Another Vs State of U.P.