Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2019A482/22576/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that prima facie case is made out and the petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Applicant granted 30 days to surrender for bail consideration; coercive action stayed pending surrender.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings refused; applicant given 30 days to surrender for bail; coercive action stayed during that period.

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

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22576 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Arif Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Salma Bano Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Salma Bano, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.N. Mulla, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of entire proceeding of Case No.270 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 270 of 2019 and 429 of 2017 (State Vs. Mohd. Arif and others), under Sections 141, 143, 147, 341, 352, 353 IPC, P.S. Manduadih, District Varanasi including charge-sheet dated 2.10.2017 pending in the Court of IInd Judicial Magistrate Varanasi.

¶7

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the accusedapplicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party no. 2 and no such occurrence has taken place.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet.

¶9

I have gone through the contents of the FIR which indicates that the accusedapplicant along with 18 others who are named in the FIR and 15 to 20 other unnamed persons are stated to have obstructed the public passage and when they were asked to move out from there they had assaulted the police personnel and thus, the accused-applicant has interfered with the official duty of the Government Servants. After investigation, the police have submitted chargesheet against accused-applicant.

¶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 cognizable offence is made out against the

¶11

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 and 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 of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶13

However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid-down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment 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 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.

¶14

With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of

¶15

Order Date :- 12.6.2019 Neeraj

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Arif 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

Aadil Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Golu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.