Dismissed

Asif Ansari and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2021A482/2929/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application to quash criminal proceedings under IPC and Epidemic Diseases Act, the High Court held that no offence is specifically disclosed ignored as matters are factual disputes. Proceedings refused quashing granted 30-day stay from coercive action upon appearance and bail application.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing refused; coercive action stayed for 30 days subject to bail application.

Asif Ansari and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2929 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Asif Ansari And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Prakash Dwivedi,Gunjan Dwivedi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings including the charge-sheet dated as well as cognizance order dated 25.08.2020 arising out of case crime no. 57 of 2020 and proceedings of Case No. 1018 of 2020, under Sections 269, 270, 505, 188 IPC and Section 66D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Section 3 of The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District- Mirzapur, pending in the court of 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur.

¶8

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

¶9

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 applicants. 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 the Supreme Court in case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 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 applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, before the court below and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶10

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as

¶11

charge-sheet is refused.

¶12

However, it is provided 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 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶13

For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of 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 :- 23.2.2021 AK Pandey

Asif Ansari and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asif Ansari and Another 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

Prince Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Parmar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harish Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Jain and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagram Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another