Disposed

Junaid v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2020A482/37480/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought quashing of a charge sheet alleging offences under IPC sections 332, 379, and 427. The court held that disputed facts preclude quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It refused the prayer but granted 30 days for surrender, directing no coercive action during that period if bail is applied for.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; 30 days from today or until surrender/bail application, no coercive action against applicants.

Junaid Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37480 of 2018.

¶3

Applicant :- Junaid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta, J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 12.01.2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 430 of 2015, Case No. 1554 of 2016 - (State Vs. Afsha Murad & others) under Sections 332, 379 & 427 I.P.C., Police Station - Kotwali, District Rampur, pending in the Court of Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.

¶7

As per the allegation made in the complaint, it is alleged that while work of shifting the electricity poles was in progress by blocking the road, the applicant forcibly entered there pulling a rickshaw on account of which the minor child sitting in rickshaw suffered injuries and has been medically examined.

¶8

The contention of counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present application has been instituted with a mala-fide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents 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 applicants. 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.

¶10

At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, the prayer for quashing the entire proceeding order is refused.

¶11

However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within thirty days from

¶12

today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of settled law laid down 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 in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

¶13

For a period of thirty days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, 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.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 02.01.2020. Vinod.

Junaid v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Junaid v. State of Up 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

Brij Lal Shukla and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Smt. Malwati and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Sagar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rishipal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another