Dismissed

Dr Mustaq Husain v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC4 May 2018A482/13379/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of the charge sheet, holding that disputed questions of fact preclude adjudication at this stage. However, it granted a 45-day truce from coercive action subject to the applicant appearing for bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. No coercive action for 45 days if applicant appears for bail; otherwise coercive action shall be taken.

Dr Mustaq Husain Vs State of Up and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13379 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Dr Mustaq Husain Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 the charge sheet No.236 of 2017 dated 23.12.2017 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.1777 of 2018 (State vs. Dr. Mustaq) arising out of Case Crime No.333 of 2017, under Sections 323, 324, 354-B, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Pakwada, District Moradabad.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant 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 applicant. 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 charge sheet No.236 of 2017 dated 23.12.2017 as well as entire proceeding of aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicant appeard and surrenderd before the court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be

¶11

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 applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 4.5.2018 Jitendra

Dr Mustaq Husain v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Mustaq Husain 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

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

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

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

Radhey Shyam and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pal Singh @ Jaspal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Gopal Vishwkarma Vs State of U.P. and Another