Partly allowed

Obaidur Rehman v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2022A482/34964/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court heard an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. The applicant alleged the FIR was mala fide. The court held that prima facie the FIR disclosed an offence and refused the quashing prayer based on settled precedents, but directed the lower court to consider the bail application within ten days.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of charge sheet and criminal proceedings refused; bail application directed to be considered by court below within ten days.

Obaidur Rehman Vs State of U.P and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34964 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Obaidur Rehman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Archana Tiwari,Atul Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Atul Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant, 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 27.3.2022 and cognizance order dated 4.7.2022 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 2632 of 2022 (State Vs. Obaidur Rehman) arising out of case crime no. 235 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, P.S. Gambhirpur, District- Azamgarh, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 26, Azamgarh.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the F.I.R., it is alleged that on 7.11.2021, the first informant had gone at the grocery shop, where some quarrel regarding payment of money took place between applicant and opposite party No. 2 and the applicant started hurling abuses and assaulted the victim by lathi, danda and rod. On account of assault made by the applicant, the victim suffered serious injury on his head and a supplementary injury report has been submitted wherein the doctor has noted crack fracture injury on his scalp.

¶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 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.

¶11

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, cognizance order and entire criminal proceedings is refused.

¶12

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 both the parties.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 1.11.2022 KU

¶15

Digitally signed by KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.11.01 17:34:35 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Obaidur Rehman v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Obaidur Rehman 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

Abdul Hasan Vs State of U.P. 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

Rajaram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shrre Satveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Bachchu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another