On an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a charge sheet under various IPC and D.P. Act provisions, the court refused the prayer. The applicant was granted 30 days to appear and apply for bail; otherwise, coercive action would be taken.
Prayer for quashing refused. Applicant given 30 days to apply for bail.
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. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19930 of 2019
Applicant :- Ziaurrahman And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Naseem Ahmad,Salman Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Abhinav Prasad learned AGA for the State.
This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer seeking quashing of charge sheet dated 13.12.2018 bearing charge sheet No. 204/2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 307/2018, under section 498A, 323, 377, 506, 354 A, 376 IPC read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Galshaeed, District- Mordabad, pending before the court of ACJM, Court No. 1, Moradabad.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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.
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 .
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.
It is stated that applicant no. 1 namely Ziaurrahman is on bail.
However, it is directed, that in case applicant no.2 namely Danish appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply 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). For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the above directions, present application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.5.2019 ssm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet disclosing offences under Sections 498A, 323, 377 IPC and others warrants quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the prima facie case against the applicant justifies the refusal of the quashing application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur v. State of PunjabExplained¶8
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalExplained¶8
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. P.P. SharmaExplained¶8
State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful HaqExplained¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq
Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P.Relied on¶11
Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar PradeshRelied on¶11
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ziaurrahman
Danish
State Of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
