Disposed

Mohd. Mubarak Ali @ Mohd. Mubarik Ali and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jun 2018A482/20750/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of cognizance and charge sheet regarding alleged offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act was rejected as no offence was clearly made out to be barred. The court granted protection from coercive action and directed speedy hearing of bail and discharge applications.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; protection from coercive action granted; directions for speedy hearing of bail and discharge applications issued.

Mohd. Mubarak Ali @ Mohd. Mubarik Ali and 3 Ors. Vs State… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20750 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Mubarak Ali @ Mohd. Mubarik Ali And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the cognizance order dated 09.01.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistate VIIIth Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No. C.N.R. No. UPGZO4-0020302018 (State Vs. Mohd. Muparak Ali @ Mohd. Mubark Ali and others) as well as the charge sheet dated 14.09.2017 in Case Crime No. 152/2017 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 354 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad.

¶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 and as such, the present proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court.

¶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 cognizance order as well as charge-sheet in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶11

However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicants are punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years.

¶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, their prayer for 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

It is further provided that in case applicant no. 3 Nagina claims discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. through counsel and applicant no. 1 Mohd. Mubarak Ali @ Mohd. Mubarik Ali, applicant no. 2 Mohd. Sagir Khan and applicant no. 4 Hasmuddin @ Habru @ Shamshuddin claim discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. in person within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the trial court in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2012 Law Suit (SC) 716.

¶14

For a period of sixty days, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant no. 1 Mohd. Mubarak Ali @ Mohd. Mubarik Ali, applicant no. 2 Mohd. Sagir Khan and applicant no. 4 Hasmuddin @ Habru @ Shamshuddin.

¶15

Till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant no. 3 Nagina.

¶16

With the above directions, the instant application is finally disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 6.6.2018 Sharad/-

Mohd. Mubarak Ali @ Mohd. Mubarik Ali and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Mubarak Ali @ Mohd. Mubarik Ali and 3 Ors. 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

Smt. Shruti Maheshwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nishant Kushwaha @ Sharad and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sher Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tara and 10 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yashpal Chugh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another