Partly allowed

Gulfhan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2019A482/13097/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, holding that disputed factual issues prevented adjudication. It directed no coercive action for 30 days if the applicant appears or applies for bail.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action to be taken against the applicant for 30 days from the order date or until bail disposal, whichever is earlier.

Gulfhan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 56

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13097 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Gulfhan And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Malviya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajeev Malviya, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer seeking quashing of the Non Bailable Warrant dated 12.12.2018 and 15.2.2019 of the Criminal Case No. 2063 of 2018 arsing out of FIR No. 371 of 2017, under section 323,504, 506, 498 A, IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Makkanpur, District Firozabad pending before the Civil Judge (JD)/Magistrate Sikohabad, DistrictFirozabad.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

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 relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under section 482 Cr.PC. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283 .

¶9

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the Criminal case as well as summoning order pending before the court concerned is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicant files an application for recalling of the non-bailable warrant issued against him within 30 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of applicant in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57)ALR 290, as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC).

¶11

For a period of 30 days from today or till disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶12

However, in case, the applicant do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶13

With the above directions, present application is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.4.2019 ssm

Gulfhan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulfhan 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

Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Javed Vs Union of India through Ncb Lucknow

Pankaj @ Veerbhan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Hasnain Vs State of Up and 5 Others

Vinay Prakash Srivastav and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Harish Belwal and Another Vs State of Up and Another