Partly allowed

Abdul Saleem and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2018A482/33846/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings, finding an offence was made out. However, the Court ordered that if the applicants surrendered and applied for bail within four weeks, bail would be considered promptly and no coercive action would be taken against them during that period.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings refused; conditional direction that if applicants surrender and apply for bail within four weeks, bail shall be considered and no coercive action taken.

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33846 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Abdul Saleem And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Anwar Hussain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of complaint case no.2495 of 2016, under Sections 354, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Ramgarh, District Firozabad pending int he court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Shikohabad, Firozabad.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At last he submitted that the applicants are ready to appear before the court and to face the trial. He sought some time to surrender before the court below.

¶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 applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the criminal proceedings in the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶10

However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within four weeks from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of four weeks from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken

¶11

against them.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 8.10.2018

¶14

Asha

Abdul Saleem and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Saleem and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Daya Prasad Vs Harindra Prasad and Others

Nisar Ahmad Vs J.D.C. and Others

Samar Nath Vs D.D.C. Jaunpur and Ors.

Shamim Hasan and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sharad Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babbu Pathak Alias Mahendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Ors.