Dismissed

Jalam and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Mar 2019A482/11739/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court S.482 application sought quashing of proceedings for minor offenses involving disputed facts. Court held that prima facie case exists; submissions involved factual disputes reserved for trial court. Application dismissed; bail to be decided expeditiously by lower court.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of proceedings and summoning order refused; application dismissed.

Jalam and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11739 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Jalam And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shweta Pandey,Punita Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 596 of 2018 arising out of Case No. 4498 of 2016 under Sections 323, 452, 427 IPC, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Amroha with an alternative prayer to quash the summoning order dated 21.02.2017.

¶6

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that prima facie case 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 under Section 482 CR.P.C. At this stage, only prima-facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Crl) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma 1992 SCC(Crl) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (para-10) 2005 SCC (Crl.) 283.

¶7

However, learned counsel for the applicants argued that the benefit of the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004(57) ALR 290 approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009(3) ADJ 322 (SC) be provided to them.

¶8

In view of above, the prayer for quashing the proceeding and the summoning order is hereby refused.

¶9

Needless to state that in the eventuality of filing any bail application by the applicants before the trial Court, it is expected from the trial Court to decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law after considering all the aspects of the matter.

¶10

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the competent Court is to act in accordance with law.

¶11

This application stands dismissed accordingly.

¶12

Order Date :- 29.3.2019 Fhd.

Jalam and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jalam and 2 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

Gopi Chand Vs Addl. Collector and Others

Naresh Kumar Vs Addl. Collector /a.D.M. Admin and Others

Vikram and Another Vs Addl. Collector /a.D.M. Admin and Others

Indraman and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankur Goyal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand Vs State of U.P. and Anr.