Dismissed

Sanaullah and 5 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2019A482/37601/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash summoning and bailable warrant orders. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that disputed facts cannot be decided at this stage. The prayer for quashing was refused and future bail applications allowed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash summoning order and criminal proceedings was refused; directive issued for expedient bail consideration upon future application.

Sanaullah and 5 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37601 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sanaullah And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 28.03.2019, bailable warrant orders dated 09.05.2019 and 15.06.2019 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.107 of 2018 (Rajendra Vs. Sanaullah and others), under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Baghauch Ghat, District Deoria.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that on account of civil proceedings pending between the parties on 12.09.2018 at about 7:00 AM, the applicants abused the victim Rajendra Prasad with the name of his caste with an intention to humiliate and intimidate him and also assaulted him and when village watchman Swami Nath reached at the place of the incident and tried to rescue the victim, the applicants also assaulted him. On account of assault made by the applicants, Rajendra Prasad and Swami Nath have suffered injuries on their person and have been medically examined.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, no offence is disclosed against the applicant and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, impugned summoning order cannot be quashed.

¶10

Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to

¶11

the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶12

The prayer for quashing the summoning order and entire proceedings is therefore refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear/surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.10.2019 Nadim

Sanaullah and 5 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanaullah and 5 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

Mobin Vs State of U.P.

Mahvir Singh @ Fauji Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Siya Ram Vs State of U.P.

Chanchal Kashyap and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Anr.