Disposed

Khursheed Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2019A482/14497/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 498-A IPC and DP Act, the High Court held that factual disputes precluded quashing. The application was disposed of refusing quash but directing refraining from coercive measures for 30 days and considering bail if the applicant surrenders.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. No coercive measures against applicant for 30 days if he surrenders and applies for bail.

Khursheed Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14497 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Khursheed Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd Naushad

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 10.8.2017 as well as Complaint Case No. 1512 of 2016 (Sakeena Khatoon Vs. Khursheed Ahmad), under Sections- 498-A, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Nagra, District- Ballia, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Ballia.

¶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 causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶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 at this stage. 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.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 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 .

¶9

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶10

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶11

For a period of 30 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 16.7.2019/Akbar

Khursheed Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khursheed Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Vivek Batish Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bigmool Buildcon Ptv. Ltd. and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ghanshyam Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagadish @ Giragit and 2 others Vs State of U.P. and another

Smt. Taniya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another