Disposed

Abdul Saleem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2019A482/43648/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, noting that factual disputes required adjudication below. However, the applicant was directed to surrender and apply for bail within 45 days, during which no coercive action would be taken, relying on settled law.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing was refused. The applicant is directed to surrender and apply for bail within 45 days. No coercive measures to be taken for this period.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43648 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Abdul Saleem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Raj Singh,Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5232 of 2007 (State Vs. Nand Lal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 182 of 2007, under Sections- 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Kasana, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶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 applicant at this stage. 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. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

¶9

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶10

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and

¶11

decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶12

For a period of 45 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶13

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 16.12.2019

¶15

Priya

Abdul Saleem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Saleem v. State of U.P.

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

Bhagvan Das Gaud Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Madhu Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Maharaj Singh and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

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

Sherdeen and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another