Disposed

Mohd. Kasim and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jun 2018A482/16517/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court refused to quash criminal proceedings under S. 482 Cr.P.C., holding that disputed factual questions could not be adjudicated at this stage. However, the court directed that bail prayers would be considered within 45 days if the applicants surrender.

What did the court decide?

Relief to quash proceedings refused; conditional direction for bail consideration upon surrender within 45 days granted.

Mohd. Kasim and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16517 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Kasim And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ali Hasan,Istiyaq Ali 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

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 23.09.2017, cognizance/summoning order dated 17.02.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2020 of 2018 (State Vs. Mohd. Kasim and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 307 of 2015, under Sections- 147, 323, 336, 338, 447, 511, 298, 120-B, 308, 325 I.P.C., Police Station- Izzatnagar, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of C.J.M., Bareilly.

¶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 proceedings 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 45 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 Supreme 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 :- 7.6.2018 A. Singh

Mohd. Kasim and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Kasim 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

Najir Hasan and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and and 1 Ors.

Komal Mallah Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rajmani Vs Sarita Devi and 6 Ors.

Gaurav Saini Alias Bhola Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Lata Devi Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bittu Ram and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.