Disposed

Waseem Raza v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2020A482/2040/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the charge sheet and summoning order in a criminal case involving Sections 381 and 420 IPC, holding that only prima facie case exists at this stage. The applicant was directed to appear for bail consideration within 30 days if he surrenders, and no coercive measures were to be taken during that period.

What did the court decide?

Application refused for quashing; applicant directed to surrender within 30 days for bail consideration; no coercive measures for 30 days.

Waseem Raza Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2040 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Waseem Raza Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Meraj Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 28.09.2019 & summoning order dated 24.10.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 12656/9 of 2019 (State Vs. Waseem Raza and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 314 of 2019, under Sections381, 420 I.P.C., Police Station- Majhola, District- Moradabad, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.

¶7

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

¶8

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 .

¶9

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

¶10

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today

¶11

and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided, if possible on the same day, 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 30 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 18.1.2020

¶15

Priya

Waseem Raza v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waseem Raza v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Taju Vs State of Up and Another

Kamleshwar Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Govind and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Beetu Singh Alias Beetu Vs State of U.P.and Another

Brijmohan and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.