Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29077 of 2018
Applicant :- Akhilesh Chauhan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Kumar Chaturvedi,Anup Dhar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to stay the process issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 28408 of 2017 (State Vs. Akhilesh Chauhan), under Sections 420, 406, 364 IPC, Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, arising out of Case Crime No. 50 of 2017 and supplementary police report dated 9.4.2018 submitted by the investigating officer.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though initially charge sheet had been submitted against the applicant under Sections 420, 406 and 364, however, upon further investigation a supplementary police report had been filed before the learned court below wherein the applicant had been charged under Section 406 only. He therefore submits that the order in so far as the applicant has been summoned under all three sections 420, 406 and 364 IPC, is erroneous. While, no final conclusion can be drawn as to validity of the summoning of the applicant under all sections as noted above, that would remain a matter to be examined at the stage of discharge that the applicant may claim in view of the fact that it is undoubted that upon charge sheet being submitted under Sections 420, 406 and 364 IPC, the learned Magistrate had already been taken cognizance and issued summons. The other argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
It is further made clear once the applicant has been enlarged on bail, he shall be entitled to claim discharge, which is statutory right and in the event such application is filed, the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by the fact that earlier the applicant had been summoned under all three sections.
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 at this stage. 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 prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case 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 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.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Mini