Partly allowed

Mohd. Zuber and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2019A482/26230/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal applicant sought quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. alleging false implication in a domestic violence case. The High Court refused quashing as a prima facie offence was made out. It granted an interim order allowing surrender by applicants 2 to 5 for bail consideration within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings refused. Temporary stay on coercive action against applicants 2 to 5 for 30 days or until bail application disposal.

Mohd. Zuber and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26230 of 2013

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Zuber And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. S.B. Singh,L.M. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari,Qazi Vakil Ahmad

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Qazi Vakil Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 2138 of 2012, arising out of Case Crime No. 793 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC an 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun, as well as order date 5.4.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun, at Orai.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that accused-applicants have been falsely implicated. The opposite party no. 2 is wife of the accused-applicant no. 1. The entire family has been falsely implicated in this case. It is absolutely unbelievable that the whole family members of the accusedapplicant no. 1 would travel to the house of opposite party no. 2 and would do mar-peet there and cause injuries to the opposite party no. 2. He has drawn attention to the F.I.R., in which, it is recorded that on 19.5.2012 at 7:00 pm when the brother of the opposite party no. 2 was not at home, the accused-applicant no. 1 made demand for a car to be given and when the same could not be arranged, she was beaten by stick, hand and fists etc. The said version is absolutely concocted. No such occurrence has taken place. He has further placed reliance upon the law laid down in Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., 2013 (80) ACC 185 and order dated 16.5.2013 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 16899 of 2013, (Varun Goel & four others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), and argued that accused-applicant nos. 2 to 5 have been falsely implicated, hence proceedings against them should be dropped.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has stated that version given in F.I.R. is absolutely true and it finds support from the medical report also as in the injury memo, which is at page 18 of the paper book, as many as six injuries have been found to have been caused to the victim i.e. opposite party no.

¶9

He also pointed out that efforts of compromise has already failed between the parties.

¶10

In view of above, I finds that after the investigation on the basis of F.I.R., charge sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer, therefore, statements of the witnesses cannot be disbelieved at this stage u/s 482 Cr.P.C., as the same would require trial.

¶11

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 applicants. 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, it is provided that if the applicant nos. 2 to 5 appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may 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 the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant nos. 2 to 5. However, in case, the applicant do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶14

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 19.7.2019 A.P. Pandey

Mohd. Zuber and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Zuber and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Tarnnum Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Man Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Akil Quraishi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babbu Mishra Alias Suresh Chandra Mishra Vs State of Up and Another

Lal Chandra Vs State of U.P.