Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2157 (ALL)

Iliyas v. State of U. P.

2016-06-07

PANKAJ NAQVI

body2016
JUDGMENT Pankaj Naqvi,J. Heard Sri Mohammad Akram, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 411 of 2015, pending before A.C.J (S.D. Court No.1/ACJM) Bijnor, arising out of impugned charge sheet bearing no. 83 of 2005 in Case Crime no. 178-C/2005, under Sections 324, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Shahar, District Bijnor. 3. It is submitted that inspite of an occurrence dated 12.1.2005, application u/s 156(3) CrPC was filed on 29.1.2005, whereas the medical examination of the injured was conducted on 12.8.2005. It is thus submitted that it is a case of absolute false implication for ulterior motives. 4. 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. 5. 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. The disputed defence cannot be considered at this stage. 6. The prayer claimed is refused. 7. However, it is directed that if the applicant(s) appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days 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. 8. 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. 8. For a period of six weeks from today or till the applicant(s) surrender and apply for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. However, in case, the applicant(s) do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. 9. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.