Dismissed

Haneef and 17 Others v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2021A482/940/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant filed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash criminal proceedings by asserting innocence. The counsel accepted that such contentions require evidence appreciation beyond Section 482. Consequently, the counsel withdrew the relief sought. The court dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; applicants stated they would seek bail below.

Haneef and 17 Others Vs State of U.P and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 940 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Haneef And 17 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vishnu Shankar Choubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri V.S. Chaubey and Sri Amrit Shankar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGAI for the State-opposite party no.1.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the impugned cognizance order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, Mathura, charge sheet no. A-55 of 2017 dated 04.04.2017 and entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 604 of 2019 (State vs. Haneef and others) under Sections 117, 118, 147, 353 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act,1932 arising out of case crime no. 386 of 2016, under Sections 117, 118, 147, 302, 201, 353 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, P.S. Barsana, District Mathura.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has sought quashing of the proceeding by referring to the factual aspects of the matter and seeking to assert that the applicants are innocent by referring to the material evidence and the defence which is sought to be set up on behalf of the applicants.

¶8

Learned AGA-I submits that the contention which is sought to be raised, would require appreciation of evidence and entering into the disputed questions of fact, which is beyond the purview of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has not been able to dispute the aforesaid legal position and fairly submits that he does not wish to press the reliefs, as prayed for, in the application.

¶10

Counsel for the applicants states that the applicants would submit to the jurisdiction of the court below and apply for bail.

¶11

Needless to say that in case any such application is moved the court below would be expected to dispose it of in accordance with the settled principles of law.

¶12

Subject to the aforesaid observation the application stands dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 4.8.2021 Imroz

¶14

(Dr. Y. K. Srivastava, J.)

Haneef and 17 Others v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haneef and 17 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijesh Kumar Vs State of Up and 4 Others

Shivdhari and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hasan Badshah @ Billu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Adesh Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Samarjeet and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another