Dismissed

Noorul Hasan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2019A482/636/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings for Section 406 IPC. The court held that no offence was not made out and disputes of fact must be adjudicated by the trial court, though coercive action was stayed pending a discharge application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; coercive action stayed for 45 days pending discharge application.

Noorul Hasan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 636 of 2007

¶2

Applicant :- Noorul Hasan And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Chaturvedi,Vivek Saran Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,---

¶3

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I

¶5

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No.746 of 2005 (Prem Kant Dubey Vs. United College of Engineering & Research & another) (Case Crime No.1533 of 2006), under Section 406 I.P.C. P.S.Naini, District Allahabad, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Allahabad.

¶6

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 purposes 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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶8

Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228, or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the aforesaid proceedings is refused.

¶10

For a period of 45 days from today or till the disposal of the discharge application whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not move discharge application within 15 days from today, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶11

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off. Order Date :- 21.8.2019 Dev/-

Noorul Hasan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noorul Hasan 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

Jokhu Chamar Vs State of U.P.and Others

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

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

R.N. Sharma Vs State of U.P.and Another

Jagdish Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Mohit Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another