Disposed

Arif and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2018A482/26594/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge refused to quash further proceedings in a criminal complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding disputed facts could not be adjudicated. However, directives were issued for same-day bail decision and protection from coercive action for 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of complaint and summoning order refused; bail to be decided on same day; no coercive action for 60 days.

Arif and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26594 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Arif And 4 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. in opposition and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to quash the further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 462 of 2017 (Smt. Shahnaj Begam @ Shamshadi v. Arif and others) under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station - Nakhasa, District - Sambhal as well as the summoning order dated 10.04.2018 passed by Civil Judge(J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that this complaint case has been filed with false allegation, in counterblast of the F.I.R. lodged by Ashkara, wife of applicant no. 1 Arif. Moreover, 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 sheer abuse of the process of the court.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer made and submissions thereof advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and contended that the material on record is sufficient justifying passing of summoning order by the court below.

¶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

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.

¶11

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the further proceedings as well as the summoning order in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶12

However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. Police has submitted charge sheet. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before the courts below.

¶13

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 bail application, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided by the courts below on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then their prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.

¶14

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

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, the instant application stands disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 9.8.2018 I. Batabyal

Arif and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arif and 4 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

State of U.P. Vs Preetam Sharma

State of U.P. Vs Rajveer Singh Acharya

State of U.P. Vs Nsiar

Deepa Jaiswal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitesh Bhargav and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Arun Batta and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.