Court dismissed applicant's application to quash criminal proceedings alleging mala fide intent. Held that disputed facts require trial court examination. Directed bail consideration if applicant surrenders.
Prayer for quashing of proceedings refused; direction to consider bail application if applicant surrenders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 14
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43181 of 2017
Applicant :- Mahmood Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Maya Pati Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Special Session Trial No. 30 of 2017 State Vs. Mahmood arising out of charge sheet dated 17.07.2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 655 of 2017 under Sections 323, 504 I.PC. and Section 3(1) (10) SC/ST Act, Police State Pathara Bazar District Siddharth Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that no offence against the applicants is disclosed. Present case has been filed with a mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment. He further contended that the entire allegations made against the applicant are false and fabricated. The applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence.
Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in passing impugned cognizance order by the trial court.
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. Dispute of facts is to be examined by the trial court on the basis of evidence, not by this Court 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.
In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the entire proceeding passed in the aforesaid case is refused.
However, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously, 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.
With the above directions, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 3.1.2018 Sharad/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶10
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶10
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶10
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶10
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶13
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶13
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahmood
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
