Disposed

Munoor and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Jun 2018A482/19847/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, the single judge refused to quash the summons and revisional orders. Instead, the court directed expedited disposal of bail applications and stayed coercive action for sixty days, utilizing materials already on record.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings refused; bail to be decided same day; coercive action stayed for 60 days.

Munoor and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19847 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Munoor And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Waseem Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 5.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial MagistrateV, Bareilly and revisional order dated 5.5.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Bareilly as well as entire proceeding of complaint case no. 1075 of 2017 (Qamar Ahmad Vs. Shamshad @ Guddu and others) under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Quila, District Bareilly.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that from the material brought on the record, no offence is disclosed against the applicants. The present prosecution launched against the applicants is wholly mala fide as such, the present proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court and further contended that during investigation applicants were not arrested by police.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in passing impugned order by the trial court.

¶9

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.

¶10

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶11

However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicants are punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.

¶12

In view of order passed by this Court on 23.01.2018 in Application under Section 482 No. 43217 of 2017 (Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State) , it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, prayer for their bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.

¶13

The aforesaid direction shall be applicable to the Magistrate court as well as to the Sessions Court.

¶14

For a period of 60 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants.

¶15

With the above directions, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 1.6.2018

¶17

Jaswant

Munoor and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munoor 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogendra Awasthi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mahesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rayess Vs State of U.P.

Anju Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brij Mohan Pandey Vs State of Up and Another

Gauri Shankar and 6 Others Vs State of U..P. and Another