SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Arif And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 October, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 69

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 38594 of 2019

Applicant :- Arif And Another

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I

The present 482 SectionCr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.2535/2016 (State Vs. Mahbub and others) pursuant to charge sheet dated 31.1.2016 in Case Crime No.240 of 2015, under Sections 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 406 I.P.C., P.S. Ushait, District Budaun as well as the cognizance taking order dated 2.4.2016.

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.

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 applicant. All the submission 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 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.

The prayer for quashing the summoning order is refused.

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may 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 judgement 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 30 days 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.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.

Order Date :- 24.10.2019

Dev/-

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation