In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash criminal proceedings for offences under IPC and SC/ST Act, the High Court of Uttar Pradesh held that no offence is made out. The application was refused in full.
Prayer for quashing refused; applicant permitted to surrender and seek bail within 30 days to avoid coercive action.
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. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17281 of 2019
Applicant :- Fijan Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shrawan Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 11.03.2019 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar in Special Session Case No.780/2018, State Vs. Safe alias Abdul Safe others in case crime no.0603/2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, 1989, P.S. Dudhara District Sant Kabir Nagar.
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.
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 .
The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
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. For a period of 30 days from today or till applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant. However, in case, applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.5.2019
R./
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prosecution petition filed under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act discloses an offence warranting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Fijan Ahmad
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
