Court No. - 31
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36619 of 2018
Applicant :- Algoo Prasad Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dewendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the records.
The applicants, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the charge-sheet no.164 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No.311 of 2015, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 of I.P.C.,Police Station-Sahjanwa, District- Gorakhpur, entire proceedings of Case No.237 of 2016, (State Vs. Algoo Prasad and others), pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. 2 Gorakhpur as well as the cognizance order dated 28.1.2016 passed by A.C.J.M. 2 Gorakhpur.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Learned counsel pointed out towards certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application by contending that 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.
Considered the rival submissions made by the parties.
The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants calls for adjudication on pure questions of fact, which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case.
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, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and the recent being A.R.C.J. Vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd. (2016) 1 SCC 348. Therefore, this Court does not deem it proper and cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the charge-sheet, proceedings of the above mentioned case and the cognizance order dated 28.1.2016 is refused.
At this juncture learned counsel for the applicants prayed that the applicants are ready to surrender before the court and to move bail applications, but in view of the fact that the Courts are going to be closed for Deepawali vacations, he may be granted a time of six weeks for surrender and the court below be directed to consider their bail applications expeditiously.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, a time of six weeks is granted to the applicants to surrender before the court concerned and to apply for bail. If the applicants surrender before the court concerned within the aforesaid period and apply for bail, the court below is directed to dispose of their bail applications expeditiously in accordance with law.
For a period of six weeks from today, which shall not be extended any further, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants, in the above mentioned case.
With the aforesaid directions this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date:-27.10.2018 SB