Dismissed

Abdul Hasan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2022A482/34532/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the charge sheet and criminal proceedings against the applicant. The court held that a prima facie offence was disclosed. Bail was directed to be considered within ten days, and coercive action was stayed pending bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash ignored. Bail application to be disposed of within ten days after hearing. Coercive action stayed for ten days.

Abdul Hasan Vs State of U.P. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34532 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Abdul Hasan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 17.7.2012 and cognizance order dated 23.8.2012 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 2395 of 2012 (State Vs. Ahmad Hasan) arising out of case crime no. 159 of 2012, under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, P.S. Kaimari, DistrictRampur, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st Rampur.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the F.I.R., it is alleged that the agricultural authorities alongwith the police personnel had made an inspection at the applicant's shop, wherein huge quantity of fertilizer was illegally stored, for which the applicant did not posses the valid licence and as such, the shop was sealed and recovery memo was prepared. On the basis of said recovery memo, the instant first information report under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act has been lodged against the applicant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicant and the present case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment, as such, impugned charge sheet, cognizance order and entire criminal proceedings be quashed.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, impugned charge sheet, cognizance order and entire criminal proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶10

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned

¶11

counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie, offence is clearly disclosed against the applicant.

¶12

At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of law laid down by 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 impugned charge sheet and entire criminal proceedings is refused.

¶13

However, in case the applicant appears before the court below within ten days from today and applies for bail, his bail application be considered and disposed of in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 after hearing the parties.

¶14

For a period of ten days from today or till the date of surrender of the applicant, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him in the aforesaid case.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 31.10.2022 KU

¶17

Digitally signed by KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.11.01 10:04:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abdul Hasan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Hasan 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

Horipal Vs State of U.P.

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

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

Pramod Kumar Vs State of Up through Principal Secretary Home, Lko and another

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

Subhash Chandra Patel and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another