Dismissed

Mohammad Raza v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2023A482/37934/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused to quash the charge sheet, cognizance order, and criminal proceedings under Section 174-A IPC, finding that the allegations prima facie disclosed an offence. The applicant was directed to appear and file a bail application within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of charge sheet, cognizance order and criminal proceedings refused; applicant directed to appear and file bail application within three weeks.

Mohammad Raza Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37934 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Raza Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Udai Prakash Deo Pandey 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 17.4.2022 and cognizance order dated 24.6.2022 as well as further proceedings of Case No. 1369 of 2022 (State vs. Mohd. Raza) arising out of Case Crime No. 17 of 2022, under Section 174-A IPC, P.S. Duddhi, District- Sonbhadra, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Duddhi, Sonbhadra.

¶7

As per the allegation made in the first information report, it is alleged that applicant is an accused in Case Crime No. 70 of 2021 and in the said case, the applicant has not been appearing, as such proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against him and an FIR u/s 174-A IPC has been lodged against him.

¶8

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

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA as well as counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, impugned charge sheet, cognizance order as well as 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 statement of the witnesses and material

¶11

collected during the course of investigation prima facie, offence is clearly disclosed against the applicants.

¶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, cognizance order as well as entire criminal proceedings is refused.

¶13

However, in case the applicants appear before the court below within three weeks from today and apply for bail, their 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

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

¶15

Order Date :- 10.1.2023 KU

¶16

Digitally signed by :- KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Raza v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Raza 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

Priyanka Kureel Vs State of U.P and Another

Sonu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhruj Bind and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Mohd. Hasan @ Sanu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra @ Guddu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another