Dismissed

Rizwan @ Kala and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2018A482/7393/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge refused to quash the conviction warrant in a murder and criminal conspiracy case due to factual disputes. However, the court granted a 15-day stay on coercive action and permitted recall applications if bail is sought within that period.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; coercive action stayed for 15 days; liberty to apply for warrant recall or bail.

Rizwan @ Kala and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7393 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rizwan @ Kala And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kiran Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the nonbailable-warrant order dated 21.8.2015 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Agra in Case no. 293/10 (State vs. Pappu Jain and others) in case crime no. 190/09, u/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 336 IPC and 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act, P.S. Nai Kee Mandi, District Agra.

¶7

The contention of the 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.

¶8

All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the order impugned is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicants file an application for recalling of the non-bailable-warrant issued against them within 15 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 15 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

¶11

For a period of 15 days from today 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 against them.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off. Order Date :- 8.3.2018 Dhirendra/

Rizwan @ Kala and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rizwan @ Kala and Another 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

Kallu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Bhola Vs State of Up

Noori@ Noor Hasan and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sameer Vs State of U.P.

chandreshwar shah Vs State of U.P.

Deshbandhu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.