Disposed

Nazir Hasan and Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2019A482/15563/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this quashing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging proceedings under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, the court refused to quash the case due to lack of recognized grounds but directed the bail application to be considered if applicants surrender within 30 days and ordered the trial court to decide the discharge application within two months pending which no coercive action shall be taken

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed but coercive action stayed, discharge application to be decided within two months, bail consideration if surrender within 30 days.

Nazir Hasan and Others Vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15563 of 2005

¶3

Applicant :- Nazir Hasan And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,S.P. Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing as well as stay the proceedings in Case Crime No. 440 of 2004 under Section 420 & 406 I.P.C. Police Station Sarsawa, District Saharanpur, against the applicants.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no offence is made out against the applicants and the present prosecution has been filed with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He further contended that applicants have been falsely implicated in this case due to village rivalry and due to the brother of the informant, who is inimical to the applicants because applicant no. 1 has made complaint against the brother of the informant. He further contended that no offence as stated above is made out against the applicants and proceedings against the applicants are abuse of the process of court and the same may be quashed.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of the application and contended that prima facie case under Sections 406 & 420 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants.

¶9

In the absence of any of the ground recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 , which might justified the quashing of complaint or impugned proceedings, so the prayer for quashing the same is refused. I do not see any abuse of process of the court and the summoning court has been vested its sufficient power to discharge the applicants-accused under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.even before the framing of charge against the applicants.

¶10

However, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, their 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

Considering the contention made by the learned counsel for the applicants and in the interest of justice, trial court is directed to decide the discharge application of the applicants expeditiously, if possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, if there is no legal impediment. No coercive action shall be taken against the applicants till the decision of the discharge application.

¶12

With the aforesaid observation, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.2.2019 Vibha Singh

Nazir Hasan and Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazir Hasan and Others v. State of U.P.

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

Jagdeo Vs Sobran Lal Yadav and Another

Umesh Chandra Vs State of U.P.and Food Inspector

Yogendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Bilash Vs State of U.P.

Ganga Singh @ Rinku and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajuddin @ Raja and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another