Javed and Another v. State of U.P. and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
This court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings due to lack of offence and alleged malafide intent. Finding disputed facts involved, the prayer was refused. Applicants were granted a 45-day respite from coercive action if they surrender and apply for bail.
What did the court decide?
Prayer to quash proceedings and summoning order refused. Grant of 45-day respite from coercive action on surrender and bail application.
What the court decided
Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16531 of 2018
Applicant :- Javed And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Aslam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1876 of 2017 (Samina vs. Javed and another), under Sections 323, 452, 354, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur as well as summoning order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the A.C.J.M., Deoband, Saharanpur.
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.
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.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the complaint proceedings under Sections 323, 452, 354, 506 I.P.C. and the summoning order should be quashed as no offence is disclosed and the prosecution is mala fide.
Whether coercive action can be avoided against applicants if they surrender and apply for bail within 45 days.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Javed
Coram
Chandra Dhari Singh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · May
- Registered
- Case no.
- A482/16531/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court