Disposed

Humayu Khan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2019A482/45770/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court rejected application to quash charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as factual disputes preclude adjudication at this stage. Applicants granted 45 days to surrender and seek bail without coercive measures.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Applicants directed to surrender within 45 days for bail consideration; no coercive measures for this period.

Humayu Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45770 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Humayu Khan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Aslam Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 01.07.2019 submitted in Criminal Case No.285/2019, arising out of Case Crime No.94/2019, under Sections 452, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Dildar Nagar, District Ghazipur.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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 applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶9

From a 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. 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 .

¶10

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

¶11

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and 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 applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Anand Sri./-

Humayu Khan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Humayu Khan and 2 Others 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

Hakeem Khan @ Nannhe Khan and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Anshul Anand and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Mangal and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Sumitra @ Savitri and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Atendra Alias Atendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.