Dismissed

Mohd Najim v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2020A482/434/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the chargesheet under Section 482 CrPC as disputed questions of fact required determination. The applicant was directed to surrender within 30 days for a bail application to be considered expeditiously without coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed; direction to surrender within 30 days for bail hearing; no coercive action for 30 days.

Mohd Najim Vs State of U.P.and Another — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 434 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd Najim Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Sisodia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the chargesheet as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1788 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.1118 of 2018 under Sections 3 & 5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Baheri, District Bareilly pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Baheri, Bareilly. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicant that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicant has not committed any offence. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the applicant. Essential ingredients to constitute offence are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer.

¶9

From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicant are not made out. 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 a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the 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 prayer made in the application is refused.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicant.

¶11

Hence, it is directed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶12

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicant for surrender before the court concerned.

¶13

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 27.1.2020 ss

Mohd Najim v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Najim 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

Gyan Chandra Vishwakarma Vs State of Up and 7 Ors.

Gyan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nagendra Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bahadur @ Bahadur Singh Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Malati Devi and Another Vs the State of Up and Another

Ram Sajeevan Mishra Vs State of U.P.and Another