Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Amit vs State Of U P And Anr

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|30 April, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16880 of 2019 Applicant :- Amit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 27.2.2019 as well as further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 250 of 2019, State Vs. Sumit and others, case crime no. 109 of 2018, under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 376, 511 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.
Titron, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IVth, Saharanpur.
The contention of learned 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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I don't find any ground to quash the chargesheet as well as further proceedings of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 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.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Gss
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

Amit vs State Of U P And Anr

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
30 April, 2019
Judges
  • Bachchoo Lal
Advocates
  • Avinash Pandey