Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Murlidhar And Another vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 October, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21317 of 2021 Applicant :- Murlidhar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Prasad,Suryakant Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naveen Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.PC has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned non-bailable- warrant order dated 24.09.2021 and impugned charge sheet dated 01.12.2019, under Section 406 IPC, in Criminal Case No. 629 of 2021 (State Vs. Murlidhar and Others) dated 23.05.2019 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 629 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 47 of 2017, under Section 406, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471,419, 420 IPC, Police Station Nichlaul, District Maharajganj as well as to stay the further proceedings of the above said case.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the applicants and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purpose of harassment.
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 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.
The prayer for quashing the order impugned is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants file an application for recalling of the non-bailable-warrant issued against them within 30 days from today, their application may be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may be considered and decided expeditiously by the Court below.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.10.2021 SK Srivastava Digitally signed by NAVEEN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2021.10.29 16:55:11 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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

Murlidhar And Another vs State Of U P And Another

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
29 October, 2021
Judges
  • Naveen Srivastava
Advocates
  • Dharmendra Prasad Suryakant Verma