Dismissed

Tamseel Ui Jamshed v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2019A482/13882/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing prosecution and a non-bailable warrant in a dowry harassment case was dismissed. The Court found an offence was made out and refused quashing. It allowed conditional bail facilitation if the applicant applied for recall or surrendered within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings and Non Bailable Warrant refused to be quashed. No coercive action for 30 days if applicant applies for bail or warrant recall.

Tamseel Ui Jamshed Vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13882 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Tamseel Ui Jamshed Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer seeking quashing of the effect and operation of Non Bailable Warrant dated 16.3.2019 in Case No. 791 of 2018, Case Crime No. 501 of 2017, under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Ganj, District Rampur passed by the court of Addl.CJM-III, Rampur, District- Rampur.

¶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 aforesaid case as well as non-bailable warrant 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 applicant appears and surrenders 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 :- 12.4.2019 ssm

Tamseel Ui Jamshed v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamseel Ui Jamshed 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

Sayeed Bhaee Vs State of U.P. and Another

Victoria Sausan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt.Manju Lata Vs State of U.P.and Another

Shahnawaj @ Shanu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shalabh Agarwal and 02 Others Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rahman @ Atur Rahman and Anr. Vs State of Up and Anr.