Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3820 (ALL)

Haseen and Others v. State of U. P. And Another

2010-12-23

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2010
Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.:- Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. The present 482 Petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of Case no. 3 of 2010 State vs. Islamuddin under Sections 363, 366, 368, 506, 376 IPC, Police Station Delhi Gate, District Meerut pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., VIII, Meerut as well as the charge sheet in the aforesaid case. It is contended that the applicant no. 1 and 2 are the parents of Aarif and applicant no. 3 is the maternal uncle. It is contended that for the offence no charge sheet can be filed against the applicants and which can be filed only against Aarif, who had taken away the girl.It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide 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 applicants. 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 facieR.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. Moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge under Section 239 or 245(2) or 227/228, Cr.P.C. as the case may through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. The prayer for quashing the proceedings and the charge sheet in the aforesaid case 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, then the bail application of applicant no. The prayer for quashing the proceedings and the charge sheet in the aforesaid case 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, then the bail application of applicant no. 1 who is a lady shall be considered, if possible, on the same day and for remaining applicants, their prayer for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law laid by the Seven Judges' decision of 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., after hearing the Public Prosecutor. 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 of.