Partly allowed

Furkan and 12 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2019A482/36785/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an order in a prosecution under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 353 IPC, held that disputes go to fact and quashing was refused. However, the Court granted a 30-day stay on coercive action conditional upon the applicants filing recall of warrants or appearing for bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing refused; 30-day stay on coercive action granted conditional on recall of warrant or appearance for bail.

Furkan and 12 Others Vs State of Up and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36785 of 2019

¶2

Applicant :- Furkan And 12 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Sisodia,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned AGA for the State.

¶5

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer seeking quashing/stay of the impugned order dated 28.4.2018 passed by the CJM, Shamli in Case No. 1079 of 2018 (State v. Furkan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 606 of 2017, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 353 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police StationKairana, District- Shamli, pending in the court of CJM, Shamli.

¶6

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants are 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.

¶7

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 .

¶8

The prayer for quashing of the aforesaid impugned order passed in the aforesaid case, pending before the court concerned is refused.

¶9

However, it is provided that if the applicants file an application for recalling of the nonbailable warrant issued against them within 30 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of the applicant in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57)ALR 290, as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC).

¶10

For a period of 30 days from today or till disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶11

However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶12

With the above directions, present application is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 31.10.2019 ssm

Furkan and 12 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Furkan and 12 Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shahna Begum and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashwani Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajnish Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Punam Devi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Ors.

Madhuri and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Anwar @ Abul Vs State of U.P.