Disposed

Noor Mohammad Qureshi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2019A482/12299/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash rape proceedings, finding a prima facie case supported by medical evidence. However, the court ordered surrender and bail consideration within 30 days and prohibited coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

Application refused; applicant directed to surrender within 30 days for bail consideration; coercive action stayed for 30 days.

Noor Mohammad Qureshi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12299 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Noor Mohammad Qureshi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nazrul Islam Jafri,Meraj Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Neeraj Kumar Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

The present application has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 3677 of 2016 (Nikhat Aslam Vs. Noor Mohd. Qureshi), under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar arising out of summoning order dated 23.12.2016 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bulandshahar as well as the order dated 2.3.2019 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bulandshahar in Criminal Revision No. 417 of 2017 (Noor Mohd. Qureshi Vs. Nikht Aslam). Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that summoning order passed in the matter is illegal and without applying judicial mind. Initially one FIR was lodged by the victim against the applicant on 11.5.2016 regarding the offence said to have been committed on 11.5.2016 itself for the offence under Section 376, 506 IPC on the basis of false facts. It is further argued that father of the victim was being prosecuted on the FIR lodged by the applicant side. He was behind the bar. There was no occasion to call the victim at the residence of the applicant. Thus referring to the contents of the FIR it was argued that entire prosecution case is improbable and unbelievable. It was also argued that Investigating Officer after investigation submitted final report. Thereafter again concerned Magistrate directed the police for reinvestigation. It is next argued that after reinvestigation, again police submitted final report. Protest petition was filed which was treated as complaint and on the statement of the witnesses applicant was summoned. Referring to the entire evidence collected during investigation as well as the protest petition it was further argued that present prosecution was started with malafide intention only to put pressure upon the applicant to withdraw the case initiated against the father of the victim. It is also argued that one criminal prosecution was started on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 side and same was stayed by this Court. It is next argued that applicant is Manager in the institution and the father of the victim was also an employee of the institution. Offence of embezzlement was committed by him then FIR was lodged against him. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 2009 (1) JIC 245 (SC) M/s. Eicher Tractor Ltd. & others Vs. Harihar Singh and another and AIR 2017 SC 1884 Vineet Kumar and others Vs. State of U. P. and another and contended that present prosecution was started with malafide intention to wreck vengeance. No such incident ever took place nor the prosecution case is supported by medical evidence.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 argued that prima facie case is made out. Prosecution case is supported by medical evidence. Doctor concerned who has medically examined the victim has clearly opined that "sexual assault cannot be ruled out". Investigation was done arbitrarily. There is sufficient evidence to proceed with trial. Summoning order passed in the matter is in accordance with law. Revisional court has rightly dismissed the revision as a prima facie case is made out. Facts of the present matter is entirely different and the case laws relied upon by the applicants have no application to the facts of the present case.

¶9

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused as applicants' case does not cover under the purview of case laws relied upon by the applicants.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicant.

¶11

Hence, it is directed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within 30 days from today the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken/given effect to against the applicant. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicant for surrender before the court concerned.

¶12

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 11.7.2019

¶13

Sachdeva

Noor Mohammad Qureshi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noor Mohammad Qureshi 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

Suresh Chandra and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Salman @ Suleman and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Hanswati Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Upma Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Usha Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Smt. Moni and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another