Partly allowed

Tahreem Alias Chhotey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 May 2018A482/18387/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet and criminal proceedings was rejected as it involved factual disputes. The court directed that bail would be considered if the applicant surrenders within 30 days and applies for it.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings refused; application disposed of with direction that bail will be considered upon surrender within 30 days and separate application.

Tahreem Alias Chhotey Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18387 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Tahreem Alias Chhotey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Jamshed Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant 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 14.02.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 111 of 2018 (State Vs. Haji Maqsood and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 548 of 2017, under Section 380 I.P.C., Police Station- Bhojpur, District- Moradabad, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Thakurdwar, 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 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.

¶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 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 applicant appears and 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 :- 24.5.2018 A. Singh

Tahreem Alias Chhotey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tahreem Alias Chhotey 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

Gulam Sabir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madan Kumar and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Francis Vs State of U.P.

Adwitiya Saha and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Son @ Sagun Singh Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another