SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jamaluddin vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 27 February, 2020


?Court No. – 14

Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. – 1251 of 2020

Applicant :- Jamaluddin

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Anr.

Counsel for Applicant :- M.K. Singh Bhardwaj

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

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

The instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing for setting aside the orders dated 20.09.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh and the proceedings of Complaint Case No.590 of 2018 (Badrunnisha Vs. Jamaluddin), under Section 354 IPC, Police Station Antu, District Pratapgarh pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no offence against the petitioner 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 petitioner is ready to appear before the court and to face the trial. They sought sometime to surrender before the court below.

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 petitioner. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed 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.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the order dated 20.09.2018 and proceedings of abovesaid complaint, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the petitioner, namely, Jamaluddin appears and surrenders before the court below within four weeks from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the petitioner 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.; 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.; 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

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 petitioner. However, in case, the petitioner does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of.

Order Date :- 27.2.2020




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2021 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