Partly allowed

Abdul Hussain v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2018A482/25704/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant under IPC Sections 308, 323, 504, 506, as facts were disputed and a prima facie case existed. However, allowing surrender within 30 days, the Court ordered bail to be decided based on specific precedents.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; directed that applicant's bail be considered if he surrenders within 30 days.

Abdul Hussain Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25704 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Abdul Hussain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhakar Singh 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 order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the Addl. Session Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Maharajganj in Session Trial No. 17 of 2009, arising out of Case Crime No. 1223 of 2008, under Sections- 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Nautanwa, District- Maharajganj.

¶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 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 :- 1.8.2018 Abhilash

Abdul Hussain v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Hussain 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

Beenu Nagar Vs State of Up

Surya Bhan Singh @ Nankawa Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ruksad Khan (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Ranjeet Kaur and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohit Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.