Dismissed

Mahboob and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2023A482/38125/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order dismisses an application to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. citing sufficient prima facie offence materials. The court directs the applicants to file a bail application within three weeks for separate consideration.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash criminal proceedings refused; applicants directed to file bail application within three weeks.

Mahboob and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38125 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mahboob And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar 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 applicants with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 26.7.2022 and cognizance order dated 5.8.2022 as well as further proceedings of Case Crime No. 182 of 2022 (State vs. Mahboob & others), under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 308, 325, 324 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District- Bijnor, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Bijnor.

¶7

As per the allegation made in the first information report, it is alleged that on 10.7.2022 at about 4:30 p.m., the applicants reached at the place of incident armed with lathi and started hurling abuses and on being asked to refrain from hurling abuses, the applicants assaulted the victims. On account of assault made by the applicants, Akhtari and Talib have suffered injuries and have been medically examined.

¶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, the entire criminal proceedings be quashed.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA 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, the 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 collected during the course of investigation prima facie, offence

¶11

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 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 :- 20.1.2023 KU

¶16

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

Mahboob and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahboob and 3 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakeel Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rizwan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gundepudi Venkata Ramana Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mumtaj Ahmad Vs State of U.P Thru Secretary (Home)

Waris Ali Vs State of U.P and Another