Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3373 (ALL)

Siddhu @ Irshad Querasi v. State of U. P.

2015-10-28

PANKAJ NAQVI

body2015
JUDGMENT Pankaj Naqvi, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 30.8.2015 arising out of N.C.R.No.242/15, (Shakeel Querasi vs. Siddu @ Irshad Querasi and 2 others), under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, P.S.Sikandara Rau, District Hathras, as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.629 of 2015 and the cognizance order dated 24.9.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sikandara Rau, District Hathras. 3. The contention of the 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. 4. 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 submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions 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. 5. The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused. 6. However, it is directed that if applicants appear and surrender before the court below within four weeks from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously, 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. 7. For a period of six weeks from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. State of U.P. 7. For a period of six weeks from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. 8. The application is finally disposed of.