Disposed

Taimoor and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2020A482/1346/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the charge sheet and summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as reasons for such action involved factual disputes not suitable for adjucication at this stage. The court directed the applicants to appear before the trial court if they wish to seek bail or discharge.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of charge sheet dismissed; applicants permitted to move for discharge if they appear before the court.

Taimoor and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1346 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Taimoor And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Chandra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants which is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 26.09.2018 and charge sheet dated 31.07.2017, arising out of case crime no. 201 of 2017, under Sections- 147, 148, 307 I.P.C., Police Station- Bhawanpur, District-Meerut, and further prayed to direct the learned Magistrate to consider and accept the final report dated 19.01.2019 filed by police in favour of the applicants after conducting further investigation under section 173 (8) Cr.P.C.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that initially the applicants were named in the FIR and charge-sheet against the applicants was submitted on 31.07.2017. He further submits that for quashing the charge-sheet and cognizance order, applicants approached this Court through Crl. Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 46517 of 2018 in which this Court vide order dated 19.12.2018 refused their prayer and three weeks' time was granted to the applicants to surrender before the court and apply for bail, the court below will consider the same, in accordance with law in view of the observations made in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in [2009 (3) ADJ 322 {SC)].

¶9

After order of this Court, the SSP, Meerut passed an order dated 19.01.2019 under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation against above named applicants and after further investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted final report, in which the applicants have been exonerated for the charge levelled against them and due to this reason applicants could not appear before the court.

¶10

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

¶11

stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence. 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 .

¶12

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

¶13

Since the applicants exonerated by investigating officer in further investigation under section 173(8) but magistrate had already taken cognizance, so considering the peculiar fact and circumstances of this case, if the applicants appear or brought before the court, in such situation bail application shall be disposed off expeditiously preferably on the same day as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶14

As requested, the applicants are permitted to appear before the concerned court within same period through their counsel and move an application claiming discharge. If any discharge application is filed by the applicants before the session court, the same shall be decided in accordance with law.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 20.1.2020 v.k.updh.

Taimoor and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taimoor and 4 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

Smt. Varsha Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Yogendra Chaudhary and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shubhlal Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Vahid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Alok Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another