Dismissed

Aadil v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2019A482/22563/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J. dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings for offences under Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC. The Court held that the FIR disclosed prima facie cognizable offence and rejected arguments of enmity or relocation as disputed factual issues for trial. The applicant was directed to appear in court within 30 days to seek discharge.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings refused; direction to appear before trial court within 30 days for discharge; warning against coercive action if absent.

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

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22563 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Aadil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Singh,Abhishe Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Praveen Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Virendra Kumar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of the Case No. 8558/9 of 2015 and stay the entire proceedings of Case No. 8558/9 of 2015 (State Vs. Aadil and others), under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar, arising out of Case Crime No. 0458 of 2015, under Section 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Khatauli, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that this is no injury case. Four persons are stated to have assaulted the opposite party no. 2 but not a single manifest injury is noticed on the person of the opposite party no. 2, hence this is a false case. The applicant is neighbour of the opposite party no. 2 and due to enmity he has been implicated. It is further argued that the applicant works in Saudi Arabia and he has to go there early, therefore, the charge sheet needs to be quashed. He further submitted that if the proceedings are allowed to continue that would amount to abuse of process of law. Accused has already been granted bail.

¶8

The learned AGA has been mentally opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings.

¶9

As per F.I.R., the accused-applicant along with three others are stated to have caused injuries to the opposite party no. 2 by Lathi-Danda by which serious injuries were received and police, after having investigated the case, has submitted charge sheet in this case and at this stage there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of witnesses recorded by the police in proceedings, under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no

¶11

cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9 . The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶12

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

¶13

However, if so advised the applicant may appear before the trial court within 30 days and moved a discharge application and if the same is moved the trial court shall consider it in accordance with law. Till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. If the accused-applicant does not appear within the stipulated time, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶14

With the above observation, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.6.2019 A.P. Pandey

Aadil v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aadil 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

Rajesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Harijan @ Mahesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sher Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Golu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mohd. Arif Vs State of U.P. and Anr.