Dismissed

Shafiq Ahmad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jun 2020A482/10762/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that disputed facts required determination by the trial court. However, the Court granted an interim protection from coercive measures for 45 days contingent on the applicants' surrender and bail application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; interim direction issued restraining coercive action for 45 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail.

Shafiq Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10762 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Shafiq Ahmad And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sayed Sohail Asgar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint case no.23064 of 2018 (Rukhsana Begum vs. Shafiq Ahmad & others) u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Kokhraj, district Kaushambi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicant no.1 is the husband and the applicant no.2 is the brother-in-law (Jeth) of the opposite party no.2. He further submits that the allegation levelled against the applicants are false and no such incident had taken place as alleged by the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 after her marriage made pressure upon the applicant no.1 to live separately but the applicant no.1 refused the same on account of which the opposite party no.2 became annoyed and called her parents and left the house of the applicant no.1. He also submits that learned Magistrate has wrongly summoned the applicants to face the trial without looking into the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicants by contending that applicants have opportunity to file discharge application before the court concerned and the contention raised are disputed question can be decided by the trial court.

¶9

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances 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 question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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.

¶10

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 defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants are free to take all the submission by moving discharge application before the trial court. Accordingly, the matter of quashing the complaint is not made out. Therefore, the prayer of the applicants is refused.

¶11

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants 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 judgment 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 from today or till the disposal of the application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 17.6.2020

¶15

m.a.

Shafiq Ahmad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shafiq Ahmad 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

Udaivir Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Murshid Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Krapal Singh Yadav @ Neeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Laturi Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pratibha Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Another