Rejected applicant’s Section 482 petition to quash summoning order and warrant. Directed that if applicant surrenders within 30 days, bail will be considered. Disposed without adjudicating disputed facts.
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. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12352 of 2019
Applicant :- Abdul Azeez @ Azeem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Pravesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Heard Mr. Ram Pravesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the record.
By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed for quashing of the summoning order dated 15.10.2011 as well as non-bailable warrant dated 07.12.2018 passed in Case No. 820 of 2019 (Fazil vs Shahnawaz and others), under sections 323, 504, 506, 427 and 354 IPC, PS Kheta Sarai, District Jaunpur pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Jaunpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had gone to Saudi Arabia to earn his livelihood and he has no knowledge of the proceedings of aforesaid case.
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 applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 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.
The prayer for quashing of the summoning order and nonbailable warrant is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within a period of 30 days from today and applies for bail, then his prayer for bail shall be
considered, as early as possible, in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 2.4.2019 Sazia
Abdul Azeez @ Azeem
State Of U.P.
Krishna Pratap Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
