Disposed

Nadeem v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 May 2018A482/16656/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order in a case involving alleged offences under the Indian Medical Council Act and IPC. It held that factual disputes require trial and found a prima facie case exist. The applicant was directed to surrender and apply for bail within 30 days for consideration.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to quash the charge sheet and entire case proceedings is refused. The applicant is directed to surrender and apply for bail within 30 days for consideration.

Nadeem Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16656 of 2018 Applicant :- Nadeem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶4

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

¶5

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 02.03.2018 as well as cognizance order dated 04.04.2018, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat and entire proceeding of Case No. 1253 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 119 of 2018, under Sections 15(2), 15(3) Indian Medical Council Act, 30 United Provisions Medical Act, 1971, 420, 353, 332 I.P.C. Police Station- Baghpat, DistrictBaghpat, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.

¶6

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 purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶7

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 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 .

¶8

The prayer for quashing the the charge sheet as well as the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case are refused.

¶9

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and

¶10

surrenders before the court below within 30 days and no more from today and applies for bail, his 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 :- 15.5.2018 sailesh

Nadeem v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadeem 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Jagi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Smt. Anuradha Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Nitu Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Prabhakar Dubey and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Benchelal Vs State of Up and Anotehr

Vijay Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another