Partly allowed

Rohit @ Nasir and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 May 2023A482/5360/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 354, 504, 506 IPC, the court rejected the plea of no offence. The court directed the trial court to consider the bail application within 15 days and stayed coercive action against the applicants. The quashing prayer was refused but the bail direction application was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; directions given for expedient disposal of bail application within 15 days and stay on coercive action.

Rohit @ Nasir and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5360 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Rohit @ Nasir And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- V.K. Agnihotri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Kumar Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.Mr Anand Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the private respondent is also present.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1343 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 0161 of 2021, under Sections 354, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Lohamandi, District Agra including the charge sheet and the summoning order/cognizance order.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment.

¶8

From the perusal of 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 relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court 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 M/s Neeharika Infrastructure PVT Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, 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, lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 , State of M.P. Vs Awadh Kishore Gupta and others [(2004) 1 SCC 691, and Dr. Monica Kumar and Another Vs State of UP and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 781 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, before the court below and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as charge sheet is refused.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicants in view of the judgment in the case Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922 .

¶11

In the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for deciding of the bail application. For that purpose, the cases have been divided under four categories. The Hon'ble

¶12

Supreme Court has observed that the trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines, while considering the bail application. This Court has no doubt, that as and when, the applicants approach the trial court for bail within fifteen days from today, same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the court below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra) .

¶13

For a period of 15 days, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶14

As such application has no force and is accordingly disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.5.2023 RavindraKSingh

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rohit @ Nasir and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit @ Nasir and Another 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

Roshan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Saqib and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarfuddin and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Sahu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yograj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another