Partly allowed

Saddam Husain v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jun 2023A482/22204/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash a non-bailable warrant and trial proceedings under the Arms Act, holding that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 CrPC. However, the Court directed the trial court to dispose of a pending discharge application as a speaking order and granted a four-week stay on coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Stay of coercive action for four weeks. Direction for trial court to dispose discharge application via reasoned order.

Saddam Husain Vs State of U.P.and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22204 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Saddam Husain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kiran Tiwari,Mahesh Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

The instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the Non Bailable Warant dated 03.06.2019 as well as entire proceeding of Session Trial No. 20 of 2010 (State vs. Saddam Hussain) arising out of case crime No. 73 of 2009, under Section 4/25 of Arms Act, Police Station G.R.P. Fort, District Agra, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 28, Agra.

¶7

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. Only in cases where the Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of miscarriage of justice.

¶8

Accordingly, prayer of the applicants is refused .

¶9

However, in view of the submissions, it is provided that in case the applicants move an application for discharge through counsel within four weeks, the same shall be disposed of by the trial court by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter.

¶10

For a period of four weeks or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶11

With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 23.6.2023 Mukesh Pal

¶13

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saddam Husain v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saddam Husain 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

Durvesh @ Durgesh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Arshi Vs State of U.P.

Damini Shishodia Vs State of U.P.

Bablu Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nityanand Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another