Dismissed

Firoz v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2018A482/32742/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court declined to quash criminal proceedings against the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. finding no illegality in the trial court's issuance of process and holding that a prima facie cognizable offence was made out. The application was dismissed, though bail was directed to be heard within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings is dismissed; however, bail application directed to be heard within 30 days.

Firoz Vs State of Up and 2 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32742 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Firoz Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Sripat,Ishir Sripat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned AGA and have taken through the record.

¶6

By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to the charge sheet whereby cognizance has been taken against the applicant to face the trial in Case No. 17082 of 2017 arising out of Crime No.1066 of 2017 under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Majhola District Moradabad pending the courtof Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.3 Moradabad.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicants is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case on the basis of false allegations made in the first information report. Initially the first information report was lodged against the applicant and three others under sections 420/406/307/323/504/506 IPC. The investigating officer did not find any materials against the named accused persons and the chargesheet has been submitted only against the applicant under section 406 IPC. The entire prosecution story is based on fabricated facts which has culminated into grave injustice with the applicant. The complainant is also prosecuting the applicant under section 138 N.I.Act thus the prosecution of the applicant on the basis of false allegations is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and deserves to be vitiated.

¶8

Per contra learned counsel for the complainant and AGA contended that the investigation was done in a fair and impartial manner and the investigating agency collected credible and clinching material on the basis of which charge sheet was submitted against him.The applicant will have ample opportunity to rake up his defence at the appropriate stage.

¶9

From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments of the learned AGA for the State, it cannot be said that no offence has been made out against the applicant. Cognizance taken by the trial court, whereby the applicant has been summoned to face the trial suffers from no illegality and as such the prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused. At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record. Only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is made out or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines in the case State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1999 SCC(Crl) 426, and State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC(Crl) 192.where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power envisaged under section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

Having considered rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any justifiable ground for quashing the proceedings initiated pursuant to the the charge sheet in the aforesaid case in exercise of its inherent powers conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. The application is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶11

However, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case , it is directed that in case applicant appears before the court concerned in the aforesaid case within 30 days and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of in accordance with law. However, it is provided that it shall be open to the applicant to move application for discharge at the appropriate stage.

¶12

Order Date :- 4.10.2018 Naim

Firoz v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz v. State of Up and 2 Others

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

Babban @ Babloo and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Verma Vs State of U.P.

Shalu Rathor Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sushil and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaya Prasad and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Parihar Vs State of U.P. and Another