Dismissed

Rahmat Ali and Anr. v. State of Up and Anr.

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2020A482/4844/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court refused to quash the charge sheet in a criminal case alleging offence under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 308, 324, 504, 506. Directed applicants to appear for bail within 30 days; no coercive action allowed during this period.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash refused; 30-day reprieve from coercive action granted pending application for bail upon personal appearance.

Rahmat Ali and Anr. Vs State of Up and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4844 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rahmat Ali And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- M J Akhtar,Viquar Mehdi Zaidi (Senior Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 5.6.2019 and the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1900/19/9 (State Vs. Arif and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 37 of 2019, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 308, 324, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Mundali, District Meerut, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, IInd, Meerut.

¶7

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are originally resident of village Isapur, District Meerut, they have their agricultural land in the said village and their residential house their other family members also used to reside in the said village. The applicants in connection of their business and to give the education to their children have shifted long back to Delhi and are residing at Trilokpuri 34/108 East Delhi. There is a parti-bandi in village of the applicants between the family of the first informant and the members of the family of the applicants, who are residing in the village. The applicants have no concern with the alleged incident. The applicants have falsely been implicated in the present case due to parti-bandi. The investigating officer has not made fair investigation and he has submitted charge sheet against the applicants and other coaccused. The injured Mohd. Zamin is an Advocate, who had not received any injury and with the collusion of doctor he has obtained injury report. The applicants have been falsely implicated with the malafied intention. No offence is made out against the applicants.

¶8

On the other hand learned A.G.A argued that the applicants are named in the FIR. In first information report it has been mentioned that the applicants came on their car and they have committed the alleged offence with other co-accused. In this incident, Mohd. Zamin has sustained injury. The investigation officer after collecting the evidence has submitted charge sheet against the applicants. There is no ground to quash the

¶9

impugned charge sheet as well as entire proceeding of the aforementioned case.

¶10

A perusal of the record shows that the applicants are named in the FIR. As per first information report the applicants and other co-accused have committed the alleged offence. As per medical report Mohd. Zamin has sustained injury. The investigating officer after collecting the evidence has submitted charge sheet against the applicants.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the charge sheet dated 5.6.2019 of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶12

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and anotherVs. 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 UP. For a period of 30 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..

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 6.2.2020/A.

Rahmat Ali and Anr. v. State of Up and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahmat Ali and Anr. v. State of Up 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

Shyam Lal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Narotam and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ram Dayal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumari Vs State of Up and 2 Ors.

Anil Sahu @ Anil Kumar Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rizvan Vs State of U.P. and Another