Partly allowed

Mohd. Ilias and 7 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2019A482/33899/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under section 482 Cr.PC, the applicant sought quashment of charge sheet and criminal proceedings alleging malafide prosecution. The High Court refused quashment as no offence was barred and the matter involved disputed questions of fact. However, it directed the trial court to consider a discharge application expeditiously and prohibited coercive action until its disposal.

What did the court decide?

Quashing refused; directed trial court to dispose discharge application expeditiously; no coercive action until disposal or four months.

Mohd. Ilias and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33899 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Ilias And 7 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and also perused the record.

¶6

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 19.9.2018 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 27164/2018 (CNRUPNEO-40685972018) (State of U.P. v. Mehtab and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 336/2017, under section 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 332, 353, 341, 427 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Parikshitgadha, District- Meerut, pending in the court of CJM, Court No. 8, District- Meerut.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant 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. Further contention is that co-accused has been granted relief by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.2.2019 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 7645 of 2019 (a copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of this application).

¶8

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 applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed question 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the criminal proceedings, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶10

Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under section 239 or 227/228 Cr.PC. as the case may be through proper application and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submit that applicants may be permitted to move discharge application before the court concerned and prayed that some protection may be provided to the applicants.

¶12

Considering the request of the applicants and in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the applicants appear and move an appropriate application for discharge before the court below within two weeks from today the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of discharge application in accordance with law.

¶13

If the applicants move an application as stated above within two weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants till disposal of the said application or four months from today, whichever is earlier.

¶14

With the above observations/directions, present application is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.9.2019

¶16

ssm

Mohd. Ilias and 7 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ilias and 7 Ors. 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

Girish Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Rizwan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Nand Kumar Sahni Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bahadur Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Singh Vs State of Up and 14 Others

Rajendra Vs State of Up and 2 Ors.