Dismissed

Raju @ Mohammad Usman and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 May 2018A482/16397/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for alleged criminal breach of trust and other offences, the High Court refused quashing. The court held disputed facts required trial but granted thirty days for surrender and bail application consideration.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash proceedings dismissed; thirty days granted for surrender and bail application.

Raju @ Mohammad Usman and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16397 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Raju @ Mohammad Usman And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Archana Tiwari,Atul Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet no. 01 of 2017 dated 10.12.2017 and cognizance dated 22.12.2017 in Case No. 6712 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 627 of 2017, under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Pilibhit, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit.

¶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 purpose of causing 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 at this stage. 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. 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 .

¶9

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶10

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days and no more from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall 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 judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 10.5.2018 Lbm/-

Raju @ Mohammad Usman and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Mohammad Usman and 2 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Dharmpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maya Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Payas Jain and another Vs State of U.P. and 3 others

Nirmala Devi and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Munni and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Rajvansi Vs State of U.P. and Another