Partly allowed

Kamil Khan v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2020A482/932/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the chargesheet and cognizance order in a criminal case involving IPC Section 363, 366, and POCSO allegations. The court held that disputed factual questions precluded use of Section 482 CrPC. The applicant was granted 30 days of non-coercive protection pending surrender and bail application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash chargesheet dismissed. Applicant granted 30 days to surrender and apply for bail with no coercive action during this period.

Kamil Khan Vs State of U.P.and Another — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 932 of 2020 Applicant :- Kamil Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Qaisar Kamal Ansari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶4

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

¶5

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the chargesheet, cognizance order dated 25.9.2019 as well as the further proceedings in S.T.No. 77 of 2019 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 55 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Chiraiyakot, District Mau pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Mau.

¶6

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 the 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.

¶7

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer.

¶8

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

¶9

As is evident, 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 . 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. Hence, prayer made in the application is refused.

¶10

In the last, learned counsel has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of bail application of the applicant be given.

¶11

Hence, it is observed that in case applicant surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of thirty 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 to surrender before the court concerned.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.2.2020/safi

Kamil Khan v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamil Khan 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

Abdul Sharif Shah Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Jindal Vs Union of India and Anr.

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

Rajesh Kumar Rawat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sumit Vs State of Up and Another

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