Disposed

Mumtaz Khan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2018A482/21165/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge bench dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of summon and warrant proceedings. While rejecting the quashing prayer due to prima facie evidence, the court directed the non-bailable warrant be kept in abeyance for 45 days if the applicants surrender and seek bail.

What did the court decide?

Quashing prayer rejected; non-bailable warrant to be kept in abeyance for 45 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail.

Mumtaz Khan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 53 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21165 of 2018 Applicant :- Mumtaz Khan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Fakhruzzaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶3

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

¶4

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 7.7.2015 as well as Non Bailable Warrant dated 21.3.2016 & 3.05.2018 in Complaint Case No.271 of 2015 (Smt. Samina vs. Mumtaz and others), under Sections- 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Kailiya, District- Jalaun, pending in the Judicial Magistrate, Konch, District Jalaun.

¶5

It is stated that applicants have been falsely implicated inasmuch as they have no concern and are living separately. It is also stated that the dispute between the parties had arisen at Ahmadabad, on account of which applicants have been falsely implicated.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application.

¶7

Perusal of the record would go to show that specific allegations have been made in the complaint case and summons have been issued in the year 2015. Non bailable warrants have also been issued in the year 2015 itself. In view of the evidence, which has been brought on record, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie basis on record to proceed against the applicants in the complaint case. Prayer made to quash the proceedings, therefore, cannot be entertained.

¶8

All factual submissions advanced in support of the application cannot be gone into at this stage of the proceedings.

¶9

However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and attending facts and circumstances of the case, as have been brought on record, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days and no more from today and apply for bail, their 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 Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶10

For a period of 45 days and no more, from today, the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance.

¶11

The present application stands disposed of .

¶12

Order Date :- 12.6.2018 Ashok Kr.

Mumtaz Khan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mumtaz Khan and 3 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.C Bhaiya Lal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pappu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudhir Kumar Ojha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishal Sarswat Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shree Ram Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others