Disposed

Abdul Alim v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2019A482/31854/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash complaint proceedings for cheating and forgery, the High Court found no case to interfere, dismissing the prayer. The Court, however, directed the applicant to surrender and apply for bail within 30 days to avoid coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Application refused. Direction to surrender and apply for bail within 30 days; no coercive action during this period.

Abdul Alim Vs State of Up and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31854 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Abdul Alim Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Pathak,Satish Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

The present application has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no.8830 of 2013 (Mohd. Nurulhaq Vs. Noor Fatma @ Babli and others), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Industrial Area, District - Allahabad arising out of summoning order dated 17.7.2019 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Allahabad. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that earlier applicant has challenged the summoning order dated 6.11.2013, through Application U/S 482 No. 45873 of 2013 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 16.12.2013 directing the applicant to move discharge application. It is also argued that discharge application moved by the applicant was rejected. No prima facie case is made out . It is further argued that although discharge application moved by the applicant was rejected and matter was posted for framing of charge yet the applicant has not obtained bail.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that applicant has been summoned on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C.. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶9

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicant.

¶11

Hence, it is directed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within 30 days from today the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken/given effect to against the applicant. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicant for surrender before the court concerned.

¶12

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 14.10.2019

¶13

Sachdeva

Abdul Alim v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Alim v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Rizwan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Kumar @ Bhura Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudesh Chand Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Abdul Mattalib Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Vivek Kumar @ Vivek Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vineet Mahajan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another