Disposed

Mohammad Umar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2020A482/1461/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held that disputed questions of fact regarding compromise and lack of malicious prosecution cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The applicant is directed to file a discharge application before the Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. disposed of; applicant directed to file discharge application before Trial Court.

Mohammad Umar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1461 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Umar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Baij Nath Yadav,Phool Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of case No. 380 of 2019, (State vs. Mohd. Umar and others), arising out of case crime No. 1048 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 308 IPC, police station Bahedi, district Bareilly.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have entered into compromise. He further submitted that the discharge application be considered on the basis of compromise which was submitted before the Investigating Officer and not placed before the trial court.

¶8

The contention of the 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 purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶9

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. All the submission made at the bar relates 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. 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. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge according to the provisions prescribed in Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶10

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

¶11

Order Date :- 23.1.2020/v.k.updh.

Mohammad Umar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Umar 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

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Balwante and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Faisal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chaman Vs State

Chandan Gupta Alias Lalu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Godhan Singh Alias Goverdhan Singh Vs State