Dismissed

Mohammad Meraj and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2022A482/18426/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet, the Court held that quashing was not warranted as the accused have the remedy of seeking discharge before the trial court. The petition was disposed of with directions to the petitioners to move a discharge application within 15 days, which the lower court must decide within two months.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing is refused. Petitioners directed to move application for discharge within 15 days; lower court to decide within two months.

Mohammad Meraj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18426 of 2022 Applicant :- Mohammad Meraj And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Furquan Ahmad (Alvi) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶4

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 05.08.2021 submitted in case No. 7956/2021, arising out of case crime No. 101/2021, under Sections 406/504/506 I.P.C., P.S. Belariya Ganj, District Azamgarh.

¶5

The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that no offence against the petitioners is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶6

The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the petitioners have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶7

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments made in the present petition, the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.

¶8

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be permitted to move an application for discharge and the same may be decided by the trial court in a time bound manner.

¶9

However, it is provided that in case, the petitioners namely Mohammad Meraj, Afsar, Mohammad Tufail and Roshan move an appropriate application for discharge before the concerned Court below within a period of fifteen days from today, the same shall be considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, by the concerned Court below preferably within a period of two months, thereafter.

¶10

With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed off.

¶11

Order Date :- 19.9.2022/RC

¶12

Digitally signed by RAM CHANDER YADAV Date: 2022.09.19 17:38:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Meraj and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Meraj and 3 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

Ram Narayan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jyotsna Jaiswal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Salman and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Anand Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nikhil Kumar Alias Priyanshu Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another