Dismissed

Usman and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2023A482/4087/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the same proceedings as earlier dismissed, the court held the application not maintainable, citing the sterilisation principle of Section 482 and dismissing the prayer without fresh adjudication of facts.

What did the court decide?

Petition refusing quashment allowed; proceedings to continue; Registrar to communicate order to court below.

Usman and 11 Others Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4087 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Usman And 11 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ripu Soodan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Ripu Soodan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned AGA for the State is present.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 22.06.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Agra in Complaint Case No.807 of 2017 (Sayana vs. Usman and others) under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana Rakabganj, District-Agra, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Agra.

¶7

As per the report of stamp reporter, another application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.34430 of 2018 has been filed by the same applicants challenging the same proceedings, which has been disposed of with a direction to the applicants to surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail. In the aforesaid application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the same applicant, following order has been passed:-

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 807 of 2017 including the impugned summoning order dated 22.06.2018 (Sayana Vs. Usman and others), under Sections 498A/323 IPC, and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Agra pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Agra.

¶10

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 purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At last he submitted that the applicants are ready to appear before the court and to face the trial. They sought some time to surrender before the court below.

¶11

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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed

¶12

question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the order dated 22.6.2018 and the criminal proceedings passed in the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶14

However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of four weeks from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of. "

¶16

In view of the aforesaid, this second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the same proceedings is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶17

Mr. Ripu Soodan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he will be careful in future.

¶18

Registrar Compliance is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court below, who in turn, shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶19

Order Date :- 5.4.2023 Jitendra/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Usman and 11 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usman and 11 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

Smt Gudiya @ Ruksar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raghubir Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Prakash and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaheer and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Shiv Gopal Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vineet Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another