Dismissed

Ibrahim and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2019A482/41354/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the charge sheet and criminal proceedings as allegations of no offence and malfide intention could not be adjudicated due to disputed questions of fact. The applicant was given 30 days to appear or surrender for bail consideration with a stay on coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Refusal to quash charge sheet; 30-day stay on coercive action conditional on surrender/bail application.

Ibrahim and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41354 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ibrahim And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Bhan Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the charge sheet dated 10.11.2018 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 914 of 2019, (State Vs. Ibrahim and anther), arising out of case crime no.483 of 2018 under Section 354, 504 and 506 I.P.C. P.S. Collector, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,4th , Bareilly.

¶7

As per allegations made in the first information report, it is alleged that on 15.09.2018 at about 8.00 a.m. the applicant tried to outrage modesty of the victim and thereafter on raising alarm the applicant fled away from the place of incident.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants are that no offence against the applicants are disclosed and the present application has been instituted with a malfide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

¶9

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

¶10

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 relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view 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.

¶12

Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, the prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.

¶13

The prayer for quashing the impugned charge sheet is therefore refused.

¶14

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear/surrender before the court below within thirty days from today and apply for bail, prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

¶15

For a period of thirty days from today or till the applicants surrender/apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶16

With the aforesaid direction the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 19.11.2019

¶18

PKC

Ibrahim and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibrahim and Another 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

Shri Sandeep Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu @ Charan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naresh Kumar @ Mantri and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another