Dismissed

Shahid and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 May 2022A482/4325/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash charges and a case, the High Court held that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated at this stage as an offence prima facie appears to be made out. The relief sought was refused, but the applicants were directed to surrender and the bail application was directed to be disposed of expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing refused; direction to surrender and dispose bail application expeditiously.

Shahid and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4325 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shahid And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the charge sheet No.308 dated 28.09.2021 as well as Case No.168 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.329 of 2021, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kutubsher District Saharanpur.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment.

¶8

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 only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

¶9

In view of the above, the relief as sought by the applicants in the instant application is refused.

¶10

However, considering the aforesaid alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that the applicants shall surrender before the concerned court below within four weeks from today and in case applies for bail, the bail application of the applicants shall be disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law and keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

¶11

With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 19.5.2022 SKD

¶13

Digitally signed by SURJIT KUMAR DEY Date: 2022.05.19 19:02:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shahid and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahid and Another 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

Dhirendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gajendra and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Singh Vs Union of India and Another

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Priyodeep Halder Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Singh Faujdar and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another