Dismissed

Janab Ali v. State of U.P. and Anothers

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2021A482/10997/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings for cheating and false documentation. It held that no offence was clearly not made out beyond dispute as facts remained contested and discharged alternatives were available.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing charge sheet and cognizance order refused; applicant directed to approach trial court for discharge within thirty days with no coercive steps pending.

Janab Ali Vs State of U.P. and Anothers — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10997 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Janab Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anothers Counsel for Applicant :- U.C. Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 27.8.2019 as well as Cognizance order dated 9.10.2019 and entire proceedings of Case No. 8755 of 2019 (State Vs Janab Ali), under Section 420 IPC and Section 4/20 of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, arising out of Case Crime No. 569 of 2019, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur.

¶6

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment.

¶7

From the perusal of 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. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, before the court below and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶8

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as charge sheet is refused.

¶9

In view of above, application is dismissed. The applicant will appear before the Trial Court through a proper application for discharge within thirty days from today and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court which shall be considered and disposed of by the Trial Court in accordance with law within a period of two months. However, it is provided that till the application for discharge is decided no coercive steps shall be taken against the accused.

¶10

Order Date :- 18.3.2021 RavindraKSingh

Janab Ali v. State of U.P. and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janab Ali v. State of U.P. and Anothers

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

Ramanand Vs State of U.P.

Munna Gupta@ Munna Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajat Pal @ Manish Vs State of Up

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