Disposed

Irfan and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2018A482/37918/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the summoning order under Section 482 CrPC as disputed facts could not be adjudicated at this stage. However, considering the nature of offences, the Court directed same-day disposal of bail applications and restrained coercive action for 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Bail to be decided on same day if filed. No coercive action for 60 days.

Irfan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37918 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Irfan And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sayyed Kashif Abbas Rizvi,Joun Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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 has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 30.03.2018 as well as other consequential proceedings in Complaint Case No. 476 of 2017 (Zulfiquar vs. Irfan and others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.PC. Police Station Sambhal, District Sambhal.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that a civil suit is pending between the parties. In counter blast, complaint has been filed. He further contended that 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 an abuse of the process of the court.

¶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.

¶9

All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.

¶10

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as the consequential proceedings in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶11

However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court / court concerned.

¶12

In view of the order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and another Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190 , it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.

¶13

For a period of 60 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 16.11.2018 VG..

Irfan and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan and 5 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

Mohammad Abid Vs Surendra Kumar Bhadauriya and 3 Others

Mata Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajan Awasthi and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Dr. Karan Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Surabhi Maheswari Vs State of U.P. and Another