Allahabad High Court
Tayyab Ali @ Tahib Ali vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 September, 2020
Author: Suresh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 53 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13358 of 2020 Applicant :- Tayyab Ali @ Tahib Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shahroze Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 21.9.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar in Misc. Criminal Complaint Case No. 412 of 2019 whereby the applicant has been summoned under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Golhaura, District- Siddharth Nagar as well as entire proceedings of Misc. Criminal Complaint case No. 412 of 2019 , under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Golhaura, District- Siddharth Nagar pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar.
The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant 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.
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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge according to the provisions prescribed in Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the summoning order and proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 60 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided expeditiously preferably on the same day in view of the settled law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court. For a period of 60 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 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.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 8.9.2020 Anuj Singh