Partly allowed

Juhak Ali and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2023A482/27515/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 CrPC application, the High Court refused to quash proceedings but permitted the applicant to seek discharge before the summoning court within three weeks, staying coercive action during the interim.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to appear before the concerned court within three weeks to move an application for discharge under Cr.P.C. Applications stay on coercive action till 30th October, 2023.

Juhak Ali and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:166566

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27515 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Juhak Ali And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Farooque Ansari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

Second Supplementary Affidavit has been filed today in the Court, the same is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State-respondents.

¶8

The applicants have preferred the present Application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash Chargesheet No.26 of 2022 dated 15.01.2022 against applicants under Sections 504, 323 I.P.C. ( against applicant no.1), under Sections 354A, 294, 323, 504 I.P.C.( against applicant no.2) and under Section 323 I.P.C. (against applicant no.3) as well as entire proceedings of Case No.31276 of 2022, under Sections 354A, 294, 323, 504 I.P.C.,Police Station Kwarsi, District Aligarh including summoning order dated 06.10.2022 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh arising out of Case Crime No.535 of 2021, under Sections 354A, 294, 323 & 504 I.P.C., Police Station Kwarsi, District Aligar.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no offence is made out against the applicants and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purpose of causing harassment.

¶10

In the absence of any of the grounds which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.

¶11

After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicants prays

¶12

that the applicants be permitted to move appropriate application before the Court concerned as per provisions contained under the Cr.P.C.

¶13

This prayer has not been opposed by the learned A.G.A.

¶14

In view of the order proposed to be passed herein, no useful purpose would be served by putting the opposite party to notice and keeping this petition pending before this Court. However, in case the opposite party feels aggrieved by the order his/her right to seek modification/variation of the order is being kept reserved.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants are permitted to appear before the concerned court within three weeks from today and move an application as per provisions contained under the Cr.P.C. claiming discharge. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits, in accordance with law, within a period which shall not exceed a period of two months from today.

¶16

Till 30 October, 2023 or till the disposal of the aforesaid application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action will be taken against the applicants.

¶17

If the concerned court after hearing the counsel for the accused feels persuaded to have the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application. On the other hand, if the lower court even after hearing the counsel for accused holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material brought on record does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits.

¶18

With the above observations, this application stands disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.8.2023 saqlain

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Juhak Ali and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juhak Ali and 2 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

Swaraj Singh Nagar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramashankar Vishwakarma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashlam and Another Vs State of U.P.

Bajrang Lal Khetan (Since Deceased) and 4 Others Vs Amrit Agrawal and 2 Others

Chandra Prakash Kushwah Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Farook and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another