Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Mohd Shahjad vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|24 August, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 8
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26569 of 2018 Applicant :- Mohd. Shahjad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash and stay the entire proceedings of summoning order dated 09.01.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IInd, Bijnor in Complaint Case No. 1096 of 2016 (Shaista Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Shahjad), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Bijnor.
The contention of counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present application has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents 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 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, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, the prayer for quashing the summoning order is refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 Arun Gangwar
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Mohd Shahjad vs State Of U P And Another

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
24 August, 2018
Judges
  • Rajiv Gupta
Advocates
  • Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh