Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MEHBOOB ALI AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mehboob Ali And Another v. State Of U.P. & Others - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 1013 of 2003 [2006] RD-AH 12048 (24 July 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

 ( Court No. 19)

Criminal Misc. Application  No.   1013   of 2003

1. Mahboob Ali

2. Shahnawaz ..........  ........ Applicants-Accused.

Vs.

1. State of U.P.

2. Mohd. Anwar  .........   Opp.parties- Complainant.

*************

Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J

1. This is petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.  The applicants say that  Case  No. 1672 of 2002  ( State Vs. Mahboob and his son Shahnawaz)  under Sections 420,406,427,504 and 506 I.P.C.  P.S.  Amroha Nagar, District J.P. Nagar, has been  registered against them  on the instructions of the  Chief Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar.

2. The allegations from the side of the applicants are that the dispute arises out of commercial transactions between the parties and is of civil nature and  that is why the charge-sheet should be quashed.

3. I have heard Sri Mukhtar Alam, Advocate for the applicants and Sri Mohd. Sueb Alam , Advocate for the complainant and  learned A.G.A.  for the State.

4. Reference  has been made  in this case of following  cases i.e.

(i) ACC 1998 Vol. (1) 20.M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd Vs. Spl. Judicial Magistrate and others.

(ii) A.C.C. 2006 Vol (55) , 560  Ram Biraji Devi and a nother Vs. Umesh Kumar Singh and another.

(iii) S.T. 2000 (1) , 322  G. Sagar Suri and another Vs. State of U.P. and others.

5. The aforesaid cases are based on facts given in these cases ,while the facts of the present case are not the same . Every case has a different story and different circumstances and they all  cannot be treated  with an iron rod.

6. The contention from the side of the applicant is that the applicants ( accused) will come and assault the respondent complainant in the shop in an open market is inherently improbable. It is not possible to discover any prima-facie  improbability  in this circumstance. In any case, if the matter is not  proved in the Court of law, the accused will be entitled to acquittal but the case should not be nipped in the bud, for  this reason. So far as charges under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. are concerned, it is only police who has filed the charge -sheet in  these sections and charges  have not yet been framed by the Magistrate. If the Magistrate sees himself that these sections  are not applicable to the case, he will not frame charges about the same. This is not the kind of the case, where it could be said that there is gross abuse of the process of law; The complainant has made certain allegations against the applicants and he should be given a chance to establish the same.

7. Quashing the proceedings at this stage would amount to a denial of justice to the complainant, inasmuch as, he will be debarred from proving his contentions in a Court of law.

8. Petition dismissed.

Dt:     24th  July, 2006

  n.u.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.