The court refused to quash criminal proceedings due to disputed facts but directed the trial court to decide the bail application within 30 days of surrender, suspending coercive action for that period.
Prayer to quash dismissed; direction given for bail disposal within 30 days of surrender; no coercive action for 30 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7408 of 2021
Applicant :- Faim And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicants for quashing the judgment and order dated 31.10.2019 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Agra in Criminal Revision No.258 of 2019 (Fahim and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as further proceeding of Complaint Case No.3898 of 2019 (Samiya @ Samiuddin Vs. Fahim and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S Mantola, District Agra.
The contention of counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.
From the perusal of the 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 relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings is refused.
After arguing the case for quite some time at length, learned counsel for the applicants himself has given up to address the Court on merits of the case and prayed, that the purpose of his clients would suffice, if a direction may be given to the courts
below to decide their bail application within specific time frame.
However, it is directed, that in case applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of applicants expeditiously in accordance with law.
For a period of 30 days from today or till disposal of bail application whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants in the aforesaid case.
With the above directions, present application is disposed off.
Order Date :- 5.8.2021 S. Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prayer for quashing proceedings is maintainable given the existence of disputed questions of fact.
Whether directions can be issued for expeditious disposal of bail applications within a specific timeframe.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶9
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶9
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶9
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Faim and 2 Others
State of U.P. and Another
Vipin Chandra Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
